Government May Allow Aspartame in Milk...

...without any added labeling to tell you it's in there.
In a new rule proposed by the FDA:
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. FDA is issuing this notice to request comments, data, and information about the issues presented in the petition.

Want to submit a comment?
https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... y-products

I think you're blowing this out of proportion.
The federal register section is proposing permitting other sweeteners in flavored milk products, without having to put a big "reduced calorie" label on the package:

Uncle Sam wrote:Therefore, while the milk standard of identity in § 131.110 only provides for the use of “nutritive sweetener” in an optional characterizing flavor, milk may contain a characterizing flavor that is sweetened with a non-nutritive sweetener if the food's label bears a nutrient content claim (e.g., “reduced calorie”) and the non-nutritive sweetener is used to add sweetness to the product so that it is not inferior in its sweetness property compared to its standardized counterpart. However, IDFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as “reduced calorie” are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims.

There's nothing in there that says that the non-nutritive sweeteners wouldn't be on the ingredients list, only that milk products wouldn't have to say "Reduced Calorie" in order to include those ingredients. I already see artificial sweeteners in juice drinks -- and avoid them because the flavors are dismal.

There's one other interesting point:

Uncle Sam wrote:Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk—including flavored milk—as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, 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.”

Essentially, they're arguing that artificially sweetened flavored milk is more nutritionally like milk than sugar-containing milk. I can't argue against that. Whether it's biopharmaceutically more similar to milk is another story -- even the artificial sweeteners appear to muck with insulin.

JoelF beat me to this. FWIW....

Pie Lady wrote:...without any added labeling to tell you it's in there.

This isn't exactly correct. Aspartame is already allowed to be added to milk. They just can't call it "milk". They could call chocolate milk made with aspartame (instead of sugar) something else though, like "Chocolate Drink". By contrast, they are allowed to call chocolate milk made with sugar "Chocolate Milk". They are asking for the rules to be amended so that they can call chocolate milk made with aspartame "chocolate milk". But there's more...

Right now they could put aspartame into chocolate milk and call it, for example, "reduced-calorie chocolate milk". They are asking to be allowed to call it "chocolate milk," without the qualification of "reduced calorie".

Finally, no matter what they put into the milk, they still have to list it as an ingredient. So when you say that "without any added labeling," it would be more accurate to say "without any added labeling besides listing it as an ingredient."

Also, any food with aspartame has to have a warning for phenylketonurics.

Hi- There is very active discussion going on about this at Jill Cataldo's coupon board. According to Jill the milk producers association is asking that they not be required to put aspertaine in the ingredients list, and she is encouraging people to voice their opposition. Jill is totallyagainst any artificial sweetener though, and won't let any of her consume it. Here is the link.

http://jillcataldo.com/node/26990

I don't totally agree with her that aspertaine is poison, but if she is right that the milk industry is asking that they not be required to disclose that a milk product contains aspertaine, then I agree with her on that. Hope this helps, Nancy

There is no way the FDA would permit products with aspartame or any other artificial flavoring, coloring or sweetener to go unlabeled. Trust me on this, it's part of my job.

Also, I used to work for G.D. Searle, the discoverer of Nutrasweet -- although I didn't join until after it was approved. That product went through some of the longest safety testing of any food additive before or since. I'm pretty confident in the honesty of the company I worked for, or I wouldn't have worked for them.

Check your facts at Snopes.com:
Aspartame labeling on milk
Aspartame safety

JoelF wrote:Check your facts

Very good advice.

Hi- One of the posters over at Jills site, basically said the same thing Joel said that they would still have to list aspartame on the list of ingredients. Jill replied though that she is worried that the manufacturer are going to be allowed to replace some of the lactose in milk with aspartame if this thing passes. She claims that the petition is too vague. I tried to tell her that noway is the FDA going to allow the manufacturers to replace some of the lactose in milk with aspartame. Apparently she is claiming that the school lunch programs will welcome this, because there is a limit on the amount of sugar, naturally occurring or otherwise that is allowed in a school lunch. I consume diet soda on occasion myself, and I don't think it is as bad as some people claim it is. I liked the snops link Joel gave that mentioned the email about all the supposed bad things that you could acquire if you indulged in nutrasweet. One of the things mentioned was MS. My brother who died at the age of 58 had MS, and he rarely if ever consumed nutrasweet.

Jill Cataldo's writing reminds me of the fear mongering from the likes of PETA, CSPI, or PCRM. One wonders if Jill Cataldo is a part of these organizations. If not, then she is one very misinformed and naive individual...

Hi- Jill hates CSPI because they came down hard on Beyonce, and she thinks there is nothing wrong with sugar, but she won't let her kids eat anything with nutrasweet or HFCS. She is definitely not a fan of PETA or PCRM. As a matter of fact she encourages people on her website to take advantage of the $5 Lloyd's baby back rib sale today at Dominick's.

[quote]Jill Cataldo's writing reminds me of the fear mongering from the likes of PETA, CSPI, or PCRM. One wonders if Jill Cataldo is a part of these organizations. If not, then she is one very misinformed and naive individual...[/quote]
Couldn't have said it any better. There is no need to visit Jill's site, the content is usually regurgitated on this one. Sometimes we just have to take off our tin foil hats and live a little...

NFriday wrote:I tried to tell her that noway is the FDA going to allow the manufacturers to replace some of the lactose in milk with aspartame.

That will never happen. Removing lactose from milk would be a prohibitively expensive proposition. Lactase could be used to reduce the lactose (a disaccharide) to glucose and galactose (monosaccharides), but that would already increase percieved sweetness levels - there'd be no reason to add addition sweetness.