Undeclared Artificial Sweeteners In Milk

[Adalaide]

Open Original Shared Link

 

Saw this today. I'm kinda freaked out. This is all sorts of not ok. I took the opportunity to comment on the FDA website about how moronic this is. I think we all should.

[shadowicewolf]

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.

[mushroom]

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.

[Takala]

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)    The only way they could screw this up even further is to make it GMO artificial sweetener   must_not_use_profanity_on_internet..... 

[tarnalberry]

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.

[mushroom]

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?

[mushroom]

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?

[mushroom]

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?

[mommida]

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.

[shadowicewolf]

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.

[Takala]

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  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     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.     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. 

[mommida]

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

[Takala]

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.  

[mommida]

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.

[Takala]

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

Open Original Shared Link

 

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. 

 

[kristenloeh]

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 >.<

[mushroom]

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

[Takala]

The blow-back begins:

Open Original Shared Link

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,"   and see the scathing comments people are leaving,     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

 

Open Original Shared Link