|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Want Aspartame in Your Milk? Yum|
Want Aspartame in Your Milk? Yum
Posted - 2/27/2013 11:50:38 AM | show profile | flag this post
Now, there is a push to add artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, to milk products (milk, cream, sour cream, etc.) WITHOUT LABELING THE ADDED INGREDIENT. But of course this is in the best interests of school children, who need "healthier" reduced calorie products.
Why is the food industry so afraid to tell us what is our food? If all these additives and GMO foods are so beneficial to us, why are they so afraid to just LABEL IT?
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition requesting that the Agency amend the standard of identity for milk and 17 other dairy products to provide for the use of any safe and suitable sweetener as an optional ingredient.
Posted - 2/27/2013 12:24:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
If it's in the bottle it should be on the label.
Posted - 2/27/2013 12:32:44 PM | show profile | flag this post
If you would post the whole story, not just the outraged conspiracy-theory version, it would really help.
Posted - 2/28/2013 9:53:11 AM | show profile | flag this post
You didn't read my post.
1. There is a DIRECT LINK to the petition to the FDA.
2. The last paragraph of my post is COPIED and pasted from the petition.
If that's not enough info for you, well, you are in the wrong profession.
Does ANYONE do any original fact checking anymore??? Jesus H. Christ. It's not a "conspiracy theory" (AGAIN, with this -- why are you all so convinced facts are conspiracy theories??) it's a FACT and a PETITION to the FDA. Check the SOURCE MATERIAL.
Is that too much information? A primary source, unadultered by editorial interpretation so you can see EXACTLY what is going on?
Perhaps a link to snopes would do?
Again, HOLY CRAP on a cracker.
Posted - 2/28/2013 11:20:14 AM | show profile | flag this post
Posted - 2/28/2013 11:26:31 AM | show profile | flag this post
The full story is with the PRIMARY SOURCE, not snopes interpretation of it.
see the ORIGINAL link I posted, not the second-hand editorialized version posted at snopes.com.
I figured you would at least look at the original source.
Posted - 2/28/2013 11:59:40 AM | show profile | flag this post
From the original source
"the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can “more easily identify its overall nutritional value.” Umm, that is exactly what the Snopes reference stated.
Posted - 2/28/2013 12:24:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
this is actually a big issue ...
... there are now preliminary free trade talks between NAFTA and the EU, and a main issue is food labelling.
EU regs require full disclosure, including GMO, and labels like "organic," "low fat", "healthy" actually have to meet prescribed definitions.
That is why Yoplait yogurt (which has more sugar per serving than Lucky Charms) is marketed as a dessert in europe, not healthy eating.
A lot is hidden.
Ya know that "100% all-natural" honey you buy at the supermarket? Most of it is from China, and most of it isnt real honey ... its syrup filler. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/11/honey-laundering-when-honey-isnt-really-honey.html)
That "not from concentrate" premium orange juice? nuh-uh.
Its all about marketing and profit, not clear information or truth.
FDA labelling is way off international norms ... and that includes bogus claims for nutricuitcals and "natural remedies", as much as "Big Agro" GMO etc.
I think people have the right to make any stupid, un-healthy choice, they want; people also have the right to make misguided, irrational "i think its healthy" (even though it isn't), choices.
What matters is that the information be told, exactly, clearly, what we are consuming.
Americans consumers don't get that.
Posted - 2/28/2013 12:28:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
You didn't read my post. ***
I certainly did read your post, and found it insufficient and hyper-reactive.
Posted - 2/28/2013 12:42:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
While I respect your determination, I think you're missing the point; being fixated on the "original" source is not always a great idea.
"A primary source, unadultered by editorial interpretation" and "The full story is with the PRIMARY SOURCE, not snopes interpretation of it." I'm sorry, that's not always true. The White House calling Watergate a 'third rate burglary'?? Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?? Cheney's 'We will be treated as liberators' and the 'War will pay for itself'???
The list is huge. All original, primary source material and all needed second and third sources, not to mention "time" for the truth to be played out. Someone's 'petition' is hardly 100% accurate.
I think cruise is right when he said "If it's in the bottle it should be on the label" And I also think other posters are right when they would like to hear from an independent third party fact checker. It's just the prudent thing to do.