Aspartame in Milk?

By putting aspartame into milk and not labeling it in the ingredients list,

Stop right there. No one does that. No one wants to do that. That is not what they are asking for permission to do.

http://andevidencelibrary.com/evidence.cfm?evidence_summary_id=251150&auth=1

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: The American Dietetic Association?//!! Really---don't make me laugh. The ADA is TOTALLY in bed with the Big Pharma/Big Chemical dynamic. Type II diabetes is TOTALLY reversible, in most cases, with proper diet (avoiding sugar and simple carbs and avoiding artificial sweeteners---because they spike blood insulin levels) and through a program of cardio and weight lifting (which increases insulin sensitivity in muscles). But all that the ADA mentions on their website is that if "diet and exercise" (and remember, the ADA promotes a low-fat diet when a low-fat diet has NEVER proven to successfully defeat Type II diabetes, but a low sugar/simple carb diet has) "doesn't help, then medication might be in order". And when you look at their official website---my, my, what do we see? But adds from some of the biggest pharmaceutical houses in the world! There is an odor of rattus, rattus about that, don't you think?

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.

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!

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!

Surely a diabetic shouldn't be consuming these items at all?

How can SO many people miss the point?!??

Milk, the white stuff, will not have anything added, it will be, as ever, milk.

However

Flavoured milks canot have aspartame in and still be called "flavoured milk" but they can have sugar (or whatever) in, and most of them do.

So; now, at the moment (in the USA), "chocolate milk" cannot have aspartame in. It would have to be called "chocolate flavoured milk-based drink" or whatever, and the "chocolate milk" (or strawberry or whatever) you buy cannot have it in.

NOBODY is saying it wont be listed in the ingredients. Just like diet coke is still coke but contains aspartame.

Got it?

I just want to clarify that reduced calorie flavored milks (ie, artificially sweetened) are already on many schools. Mainstream dairies, like Borden's produce them.

The purpose of this law is to change the labels on these products, so that you have to read the ingredients list to know that it is artificially sweetened, rather than having "reduced calorie" on the front. It applies to awhile list of dairy products, as well, not just milk.

Why not just sweeten it NATURALLY? Why is that so friggin' hard?! Maybe with erythritol or stevia-- or even xylitol-- it prevents cavities, for goodness sake.

Why must be shove these awful chemicals down their throats? **Sigh**

I'm sure they could do that too, if it needs sweetening at all. Nobody is forcing anybody to drink chocolate milk, just like nobody is forcing anybody to drink coke, or juice or whatever.

Just drink plain milk, problem solved. NOBODY IS SUGGESTING ASPRTAME BE ADDED TO PLAIN MILK.

Why not just sweeten it NATURALLY? Why is that so friggin' hard?! Maybe with erythritol or stevia-- or even xylitol-- it prevents cavities, for goodness sake.

Why must be shove these awful chemicals down their throats? **Sigh**

I'm sure they could do that too, if it needs sweetening at all. Nobody is forcing anybody to drink chocolate milk, just like nobody is forcing anybody to drink coke, or juice or whatever.

Just drink plain milk, problem solved. NOBODY IS SUGGESTING ASPRTAME BE ADDED TO PLAIN MILK.

They are giving it to your children!

I just want to clarify that reduced calorie flavored milks (ie, artificially sweetened) are already on many schools. Mainstream dairies, like Borden's produce them.

The purpose of this law is to change the labels on these products, so that you have to read the ingredients list to know that it is artificially sweetened, rather than having "reduced calorie" on the front. It applies to awhile list of dairy products, as well, not just milk.

They give flavoured milk out at school there? In UK it's only real milk.

Yep. Our kids are so used to this stuff that if you take it out of the schools, average consumption drops. I don't know of any studies that were carried on long term to see if consumption adjusts over time.

That's both shocking and very sad to me. What chance to they have to grow up healthy when they are being taught at such a young age that its ok to consume high sugar products? They would be better not having it, they should pull it out of schools anyway and only give the option of plain milk. Milk is only free in schools in the UK upto the age of around 5! If they want it after then we have to pay for it......

Why not just sweeten it NATURALLY? Why is that so friggin' hard?! Maybe with erythritol or stevia-- or even xylitol-- it prevents cavities, for goodness sake.

Why must be shove these awful chemicals down their throats? **Sigh**

I'm sure they could do that too, if it needs sweetening at all. Nobody is forcing anybody to drink chocolate milk, just like nobody is forcing anybody to drink coke, or juice or whatever.

Just drink plain milk, problem solved. NOBODY IS SUGGESTING ASPRTAME BE ADDED TO PLAIN MILK.

They are giving it to your children!

No they bloody aren't. As you said, no schools in this country give out chocolate milk.

And schools could always but the sugar version as opposed to the apsartame version. Like I said milk, the plain white stuff continues to have nothing added to it whatsoever.

Why not just sweeten it NATURALLY? Why is that so friggin' hard?! Maybe with erythritol or stevia-- or even xylitol-- it prevents cavities, for goodness sake.

Why must be shove these awful chemicals down their throats? **Sigh**

I'm sure they could do that too, if it needs sweetening at all. Nobody is forcing anybody to drink chocolate milk, just like nobody is forcing anybody to drink coke, or juice or whatever.

Just drink plain milk, problem solved. NOBODY IS SUGGESTING ASPRTAME BE ADDED TO PLAIN MILK.

They are giving it to your children!

No they bloody aren't. As you said, no schools in this country give out chocolate milk.

And schools could always but the sugar version as opposed to the apsartame version. Like I said milk, the plain white stuff continues to have nothing added to it whatsoever.

Ha ha sorry....I wrongly assumed that you lived in USA. No they aren't giving it to our children thank god!

Surely a diabetic shouldn't be consuming these items at all?

I agree, but there are some diabetics out there (like my father) who think that drinking junk, as long as it doesn't have real sugar, is okay for him. If the option isn't there, often he'll buy a full-sugar version because he wants that particular food or drink.

Though if someone was diabetic and had a healthy diet and wanted chocolate milk as a 'treat' once in a blue moon, I can't imagine it would be harmful for them to have a sugar-free option.

But it is harmful. Type II diabetics are already dealing with AGEs (Advanced Glycation End-products) which, as the name suggests, age every cell in the body. Why would it be intelligent to add a further dangerous chemical assault to their body through artificial sweeteners?

In my college biology class we did an experiment with slime molds and their rate of growth with certain foods and conditions. The slime mold came on petri dishes, and HAD to be returned IN CLASS after the experiment because if you threw it away it would cause an outbreak of this stuff that did not sound pleasant. It can live through negative temps, extremely hot temps, and will grow off of basically anything put into the dish (oats, cheese, etc). It's kind of a boss.

I chose aspartame as my weapon to see how fast it would grow. IT KILLED IT IN LESS THAN A DAY. I thought maybe I had the rogue bad slime mold because they never die, so I got another one and it killed it again. My professor was pretty shocked, as no one had ever killed it before.

Point is, I'm not eating anything that causes something that can kill a slime mold in less than a day. Also, it gives my brother seizures and migraines.

Salt will kill a slug pretty fast, would you also avoid all salt?

You're comparing a slime mold to a slug? HA! Hahaha. Wow. Nice try, troll.

I don't think you know what that word means.