Get email alerts Get Celiac.com E-mail Alerts  




Celiac.com Sponsor:
Celiac.com Sponsor:




Ads by Google:






   Get email alerts  Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts

Undeclared Artificial Sweeteners In Milk
0

18 posts in this topic



Ads by Google:

I'm not going to worry about it because they cannot add the sweeteners without placing it on the label. So things like chocolate milk would have it, but plain jane won't. Likewise they cannot hide chemical sweeteners.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to worry about it because they cannot add the sweeteners without placing it on the label. So things like chocolate milk would have it, but plain jane won't. Likewise they cannot hide chemical sweeteners.

You missed the point, Shadow.  They are applying for permission not to have to place it on the label, even for chocolate milk and the like, so that they can add it to whatever they please, including plain yogurts, etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, fer the Love of ****, is this for real ?   Just when you think food policy couldn't get any stoopider.....  I can't even SAY what I think about the this, I will have to comment tomorrow, after I have my cooling down period. (need icon with smoke coming out of ears)  :angry:   The only way they could screw this up even further is to make it GMO artificial sweetener  :wacko:  must_not_use_profanity_on_internet..... 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, it is not clear, but if you read between the lines, it looks like they are petitioning not to have to say "artificially sweetened" on a front label, which does NOT mean that they would be able to leave it off of the ingredient list.  These are two different things and they are, as best I can tell, regulated somewhat differently.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




The trouble as I see it is that nobody is going to be expecting artificial sweetener in a product that has never had it and should not have it, so who is going to see that label on the back?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble as I see it is that nobody is going to be expecting artificial sweetener in a product that has never had it and should not have it, so who is going to see that label on the back?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble as I see it is that nobody is going to be expecting
artificial sweetener in a product that has never had it and should not
have it, so who is going to see that label on the back?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another problem.  For example stevia can cause loose bowels in some individuals.  What are some other additives and reactions.  Then we will have to pay more$ to avoid more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, it is not clear, but if you read between the lines, it looks like they are petitioning not to have to say "artificially sweetened" on a front label, which does NOT mean that they would be able to leave it off of the ingredient list.  These are two different things and they are, as best I can tell, regulated somewhat differently.

This is what i understood.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm "reading between the lines," alright.

 

This insidious campaign to put artificial sweeteners in dairy is a marketing "gimmick" to children, whom are minors, who have a greater taste for sweet things than adults, AND have parents that are being harangued by self-styled "health experts" that their little darlings are unpleasingly chubby to the eye, so they are going to cause a cost crisis $$$ treating their future obesity.  

 

It is the EXACT same thing that makers of fast food do to make it more addictive, adding a chemical to the food item to create a craving. 

 

I read the write-up of some sort of government symposium from a few years back, on how to make children drink more milk in schools. You see, dairy consumption has been dropping a bit, and schools get paid to try to force- feed it to children - they get reimbursed a certain amount for each school lunch sold. School lunches are a major price support mechanism for our agricultural subsidies.  The conference was sponsored by various Big Agriculture interests, which you didn't know unless you looked carefully. Truly, these government and non profit foundation people attending the conference were in running contention for the category of Most Clueless People On Earth. They never considered the fact that different ethnic groups develop lactose intolerance at different ages, and some older children just avoid milk, because they cannot easily digest it.  They are in a tizzy because some kids drank soda.  They are not bright enough to consider maybe they should offer them real fruit juice....   They went on this "LOW FAT" craze, and made the school milk for children LOW FAT because well -off professional women are brainwashed to avoid "fat" in food.  Children, on the other hand, are GROWING, and NEED FAT in their diets to promote brain development.  Children also do not like low- fat milk. Why should they ?  They're kids.  They are innately programmed to like foods too rich for adults.   OMG :ph34r:  The HORRORS how do you get them to drink this low fat, tasteless crap ?  You FLAVOR it with chocolate, for example.  Kids like chocolate milk....  chocolate has fat and sugar.  OMG OMG  :ph34r:  :ph34r: THE HORRORS you are now suggesting giving SUGAR AND CHOCOLATE TO CHILDREN ?!   We are going to make them FAT !   We can't do that !

 

By the way, where does milk fat go ?  It's cream, and it goes to make BUTTER and CHEESE, the twin Evils of the coming Food Fat Zombie Apocalypse!  But I digress.... 

 

Really, the government, your USDA/FDA and a few people I won't name, <_<  was trying to get rid of that evil chocolate milk in school lunches because kids won't drink the low fat crap these self obsessed, neurotic, fat- fearing people were trying to make them drink at lunch.  At the time, I calculated out the amount of extra sugar a child would be consuming per year if they drank low fat chocolate milk instead of plain low fat milk, all the school year, every school day, and it came out to ..... drumroll.... about a day and a half worth's of calories, total.  That's it.  :o   There was no way the relatively very small amount of sugar could have been plumping up the children.  Oh, darn. 

 

"They" after much outcry, lost the battle of removing low fat chocolate milk from schools, but like the zombie hoards, they're baaaaaack.  Now, no doubt, they want to serve more fat-free flavored dairy with artificial flavoring and sweetening crap to children who will quickly become addicted to the taste of it.   So they are attempting to substitute artificial sweetening chemicals to create a sweet taste, for the real fat they removed to make the luxury foods of butter and cheese, which they will then sell for a higher price.  It would never occur to them, to either serve whole milk, juice, water, or that creating a world where all schools could afford PE classes and sports, or after school, children could actually GO OUTSIDE and PLAY safely to get EXERCISE might be a better, healthier alternative.  :angry:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have known since at least the early 80's that artificial sweetners increase your appetite. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mommida - And they are taking out the naturally low, or no-lactose portion of the whole milk, and trying to get the children to consume the high lactose part of the product, by adding an artificial chemical "enhancement" to it.  It's insane.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know so much of the general health started to decline when the "no fat" diet started.  Why?  Consuming fat satisfies hunger.  (Cholesteral is needed for brain function.)

 

What people are eating is making the population sick and stupid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USDA is currently taking comments on a new, proposed food rule for snack foods sold in schools which are not part of the regular school meals, called "Competitive foods & Beverages."   

 

This was posted nearly a month ago, on 2/4/13  but got very little notice, so nearly half the 60 day commentary period before the rules are finalized is up:

 

USDA Competitive School Food Rules

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bettina-elias-siegel/competitive-school-food-rules_b_2600465.html

 

At first, it "sounds" good, if you don't really think about it at all, (see above rant on low fat, artificially sweetened milk... ) but then, as icing on the cake, it has enough loopholes in it that it will be meaningless by the time they are done with it.  And it's ONLY a 160 pages long book of food rules, as to what can go into a vending machine or on the a la carte sales.  Instead of local schools saying, we're not going to sell sugared drinks, they think they need a 160 page Federal novel of "if they sell enriched crap alongside it, and some diet sodas, THEN they can sell sugared drinks."   And "the experts" are complaining the kids are devouring pizza (with the Demon Cheese Fat!) if they have the opportunity,  but it never occurs to them that kids are devouring the pizza, in part, because they are being given this low fat milk crap.  Remember, also, that cheese on the pizza is low lactose, and therefore will be easier to digest for some minorities.   It is like they have never either played sports, or had to deal with growing teenaged boy appetites.

 

But this is the part relevant to the original topic:

 


 

 

When it comes to beverages, the rules propose that all schools be able to sell plain water, plain low fat milk, plain or flavored fat-free milk and milk alternatives, and 100 percent fruit/vegetable juice. Elementary schools are capped at eight-ounce portions, with middle schools and high schools selling up to 12-ounce portions.

In addition to these drinks, high schools can offer up to 20-ounce servings of calorie-free, flavored and/or unflavored carbonated water and other calorie-free beverages with five calories or fewer per serving.   And the proposed rules also would allow 12-ounce servings of "other beverages" within a specified calorie limit of either 40 or 50 calories per 8 ounces.  What's that about?  See below.

 

 

bolding mine.

 

 See how it says  "fat- free milk and milk alternatives ?"  and "flavored and/or unflavored, carbonated water and other calorie free beverages, with five calories or fewer per serving?"

 

They are setting it up so the schools could sell artificially sweetened milk, yogurts, and soda pops.  But they also want to tinker with "sports beverages" such as the gatorade type drinks, giving them a calorie cap of either 40 or 50 calories per 8 oz serving. 

 

 

 

 

As noted, USDA is offering for comment two different standards for certain "other beverages" sold in high schools, with calorie caps at either 40 calories per eight-ounce serving or 50 calories per eight ounces.  So what's the big deal over 10 extra calories?  In  USDA's own words:

The higher 50 calorie limit would permit the sale of some national brand sports drinks in their standard formulas.79 The lower 40 calorie limit would only allow the sale of reduced-calorie versions of those drinks. The 50 calorie alternative would open the door to a class of competitive beverages with great market strength and consumer appeal. Such a change might generate significant revenue for schools and student groups.

 

So not only is the availability of the beloved gatorade at football practice at risk, unless they offer rules exceptions to the rules, which they are planning to do, they are also wanting to tell your school the recommended number of bake sales and candy sales they can do for fundraisers.  However, after school hours, any thing goes.  Just don't do it while school is in session. 

 

I could not make this stuff up if I tried. 

 

______

something is squirrelly with the markup language, it bolded a lot more than I had marked, but it is not showing the mark up parts in the edit box so I can fix it, sorry about that. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just awesome. Artificial sweeteners are one of my migraine triggers. For f*cks sake, I swear they just want people to be in pain >.<

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's even sicker than that.  They just want to sell more product.  They don't care either way :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blow-back begins:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/aspartame-milk_n_2828359.html#slide=2189730

Aspartame in Milk petition sparks thousands of angry comments to the FDA

 

Consumer group, SumOfUs, has a counter petition up with over 93,000 signatures already, saying no artificial sweeteners unlabeled in milk. 

 

 

 

And if you want to "share the love," :angry:  and see the scathing comments people are leaving,  :blink:   here's the FDA page 2009 P 0147  "Amend the standard of Identity for Milk, cfr 131.110, to include optional flavoring ingredients with any safe and suitable sweetener" at regulations.gov

 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FDA-2009-P-0147

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
0

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      104,090
    • Total Posts
      920,307
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Hi, No, I do not have celiac  disease. I have an ankylosing spondylitis which is an auto-immune disease provoking an inflammation of the joints. Under the advice and supervision of my doctor and the professor at the hospital I follow a gluten free & casein free diet, which is extremely successful in preventing inflammatory events. And I've been doing so, strictly, for more than 6 years. So I'm not Celiac, but I can tell you that I react strongly every time I take gluten even in small amounts. Even soya sauce, which according to this website has an almost zero dose of gluten, is a lot too much for me. Nevertheless I allow myself to eat food which has been processed in a factory which processes gluten. To conclude, I would say that when you are travelling, especially in a country where celiac disease is scarcely known, you should be twice as careful as when you're going out at home. In the end you can never guarantee that the cook has cleaned his pan after using soya sauce and so on... You can only bet
    • Along those lines, many Americans are now pursuing gluten-free eating. Gluten ... Diagnosis of celiac disease typically requires a history and physical ... View the full article
    • No!  Once you fill the tub, if you sit in it for 3 minutes or you stay for 10... It doesn't change the amount or cost of the water.  That's only relevant if you have 3 kids to cycle thru that same water.  Is your hub bathing in the same water after you? Lol  And even if you add some more hot and stay longer....well...it's much cheaper than perscription meds, vodka or a substance that is legal in a few states.     Of course this only pertains to those of use with running water.... If you make your hub haul water from the creek or well and heat it over a fire....
    • Whether it is bona fide dermatitis herpetiformis, or severe eczema or hives or what have you, we all want to know how to stop the incessant itching.  Through all my research, the solution comes down to one thing: a good long soak in the tub-- with baking soda or Epsom salts or some kind of herbal tea, followed by a rub down in thick expensive lotion.  I don't know about you, but I was brought up to "get in, get done get out."  A long soak in the bath was a frivolous luxury, and a waste of time and hot water.  So now I'm having this awful breakout from forgetting to read a label and got wheated.  And every night I've been soaking in a baking soda bath to relieve the itching and aid my recovery.  And it's been hard! (But it's been very helpful too)  It has been hard to reconcile this "frivolous luxury and waste of time" as medically necessary!  Fortunately I've had no judging, and only support from my husband, who has had a similar upbringing.  Does anyone else struggle with this?
    • His son, Eli, had been misdiagnosed with celiac disease, so the family tried some gluten-free foods. After adding quinoa (KEEN-wah) to their diet, ... View the full article
  • Upcoming Events

  • Blog Entries

  • Recent Status Updates

    • HappyMom623

      I have Tangled problem! I want all the things Rapunzel Related....including Flynn Rider 😂 but seriously. I have like 8 shirts I want.
      · 0 replies
    • AprilBeth2013

      RT @MarkDever: “But the work is God’s and we do not fear the final results. ‘The heathen shall be given to His Son for His inheritance,’ .…
      · 0 replies
    • silk

      I have celiac disease and have been gluten-free for almost 10 years.  I am extremely sensitive to gluten, noting that I react within 15 minutes of contact and in fact the doctor suspects that there may also be an actual wheat allergy at play but have never bothered to be tested since I avoid it like the plague!  I am curious to know if anyone else reacts to flax or inulin?  My symptoms with those two are almost identical to gluten so I have to really watch for that in gluten-free breads and baking and recently discovered after the fact that flax was in the juice I was drinking. I know that people with gluten issues can have other problems as well and in fact I also avoid milk products.  Even after 10 years, and although it has become a way of life, it's still frustrating to have to read every ingredient on every label.😞
      · 2 replies
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      61,114
    • Most Online
      1,763

    Newest Member
    3boymommy
    Joined