Big Dairy Petitions FDA to Allow Unlabeled Use of Aspartame in Dairy
Products
March 13, 2013
Story at-a-glance
Two prominent dairy associations have filed a petition with the
FDA requesting 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—including
non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame to deceive you by not
having to indicate its use on the label
The FDA already allows the dairy industry to use the unmodified
“milk” label for products that contain added sugar or high
fructose corn syrup. Because of this, the petitioners 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”
Aspartame is the most dangerous food additive on the market
today, accounting for over 75 percent of adverse reactions
reported to the FDA, including seizures and death
Methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body
compared to other animals, and is FAR more toxic in humans which
is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to
aspartame
Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a “Trojan
Horse” into susceptible tissues like the brain, converts rapidly
into formaldehyde. This causes severe damage to proteins and DNA
that can contribute to many serious and chronic diseases, such
as cancer, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, and multiple sclerosis
By Dr. Mercola
The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the
National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition
with the FDA1
requesting the agency “amend the standard of identity” for milk
and 17 other dairy products.
This was done to provide for the use of any safe and suitable
sweetener as an optional ingredient — including non-nutritive
sweeteners such as aspartame” to deceive you by not having to
indicate its use on the label.
It’s a move that could endanger your health for decades to
come, and disproportionally harm underprivileged children who
rely on school lunches for the bulk of their nutrition.
If the amendment goes through, that would mean anytime you
see the word “milk” on the label, it could include
aspartame, sucralose, or any other dangerous artificial
sweetener, but you could never be quite sure, since there will
be no mention of it — not by listing the artificial sweetener
used, nor with a no- or low-calorie type label, which is a
tip-off that the product might contain a non-nutritive
sweetener.
The IDFA and NMPF claim the proposed amendments would
“promote more healthful eating practices and reduce childhood
obesity by providing for lower-calorie flavored milk products”
since many children are more inclined to drink flavored milk
products than unflavored milk.
According to the Federal Register:
“[T]he proposed amendments would assist in meeting
several initiatives aimed at improving the nutrition and
health profile of food served in the nation's schools. Those
initiatives include state-level programs designed to limit
the quantity of sugar served to children during the school
day.”
As if that’s not nonsensical enough, the IDFA and NMPF argue
that the proposed amendments would “promote honesty and fair
dealing in the marketplace.” How could altering the definition
of “milk” to include unidentified artificial sweeteners possibly
promote honesty or fair dealing in the marketplace, you might
ask? Read on...
When One Lie + Another Lie = 'Honesty'
According to the IDFA and NMPF, nutrient content claims such
as “reduced calorie” are not attractive to children and have led
to an overall decline in milk consumption in schools.
Essentially, as with the GMO labeling issue, they don’t want you
or your child to be “confused” or perhaps “scared away” by
truthful labeling...
The IDFA and NMPF actually 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.”
They also state that consumers generally don’t recognize milk
— including flavored milk — as necessarily containing sugar.
Therefore, since you don’t realize that flavored milk might
contain added sugar, sweetening the product with non-nutritive
artificial sweeteners, while listing it as simply “milk” on the
label, will make it easier for you to identify its overall
nutritional value.
Get it? If not, you’re not alone.
In order to understand this twisted logic, you need to know
that the FDA already allows the dairy industry to use
the unmodified “milk” label for products that contain added
sugar or high fructose corn syrup.2
Artificial sweeteners are allowed to be added, but must
currently be listed on the label. Quoting Section 130.10 of the
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the IDFA and NMPF
claim no extra labeling is required for artificial sweeteners
because sugar is added to milk without labeling it, and “the
modified food is not inferior in performance,” and “reduced
calories are not attractive to children.”
Therefore marketing products as such is neither of benefit or
detriment to anyone... Knowing that nutritive sweeteners like
high fructose corn syrup can be added without being listed as an
ingredient, is it any wonder that people generally “don’t
recognize” these products contain added sugar?
Going along with their twisted reasoning, since they don’t
have to tell you there’s HFCS in that flavored milk or yoghurt —
which leaves you ignorant of the fact that it’s there — it might
“confuse” you were they to tell you another version contains an
artificial sweetener. It also puts those products at a market
disadvantage, since the HFCS-containing products don’t have to
list it — the HFCS is simply hidden as part of the “milk”
designation.
Hence, hiding ALL added sweeteners from you would “promote
honesty” and “fair dealing in the marketplace.” Not only is this
a perfect example of how you may be consuming hidden fructose in
your diet, even if you are an avid label reader... it’s also a
valuable lesson in just how little you’re allowed to know about
the foods you buy.
Which Products Would Be Affected?
The petition also requests the FDA similarly amend the
standards of identity for 17 other milk and cream products, to
allow the use of any safe and suitable sweetener in the optional
ingredients, without specifying the type of sweetener used on
the label:
Acidified milk
Cultured milk
Sweetened condensed milk
Nonfat dairy milk
Nonfat dry milk fortified with vitamins A and D
Evaporated milk
Dry cream
Heavy cream
Light cream
Sour cream, and acidified sour cream
Light whipping cream
Eggnog
Half-and-half
Yoghurt
Lowfat yoghurt
Nonfat yoghurt
What Prompted the Request to Alter Standard of Identity of Milk?
Many are surely scratching their heads wondering WHY anyone
would want to alter the definition of milk. One potential clue —
besides sheer unbridled greed on behalf of the dairy industry
who’d rather not give you the option of choosing — can be found
in an April 13, 2011 letter from the National Milk Producers
Federation (NMPF) to Julie Brewer, Chief of the Policy and
Program Development Branch of the Child Nutrition Division of
the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).3
The letter was in response to the USDA’s proposed rule to
revise the meal patterns and nutrition requirements for the
National School Lunch- and Breakfast Programs. One of the
proposed changes was to limit flavored milk products to fat-free
versions only — a change the NMPF claimed would have a negative
impact on the goal of increasing overall milk consumption. The
letter reads in part:
“The proposed rule will not be a success if milk
consumption drops as a result of flavored milk choices that
are not appealing (or at least not as appealing as
competitive beverages students may bring to school from
elsewhere). Flavored milk was included as an option in the
proposed rule in recognition that the small amount of added
sugar (flavored milk contributes only 2-3% of added sugars
to the diets of children and adolescents) is an acceptable
trade-off for the extensive nutrient contribution flavored
milk provides.
Therefore, NMPF urges the Department to modify the
proposed rule to include both low-fat and fat-free flavored
milk as options available to schools. To limit the potential
for additional calories in a low-fat flavored milk (as
compared to a fat-free formulation) we urge the
establishment of a calorie limit on flavored milk of 150
calories per eight-ounce serving.
This will provide schools the flexibility to procure
milk products that maintain high levels of acceptability and
nutrient intake, while also assuring that flavored milk fits
within overall calorie limits for meals. Many milk
processors have proactively committed to and met a goal of
150 calories per serving as a way to limit the amount of
sugar in flavored milk, and have worked within this
constraint to formulate products that have demonstrated
acceptability among students in schools across the country.”
In essence, it has little to do with making your purchasing
decisions easier, and more to do with:
Fooling your kids into drinking otherwise unpopular fat
free or low fat milk, and
Allowing the national school breakfast and lunch
programs to “look good” by successfully reducing overall
calories of the meals while simultaneously helping the dairy
industry protect profits
I’m not sure what’s more frustrating here, the fact that the
USDA insists on using the flawed theory of calories as a measure
of the “healthfulness” of school meals; their misguided
insistence on fat free and low fat products to combat obesity;
or their ignorant stance on artificial sweeteners.
When combined, what you end up with is a nutritional
nightmare. How can anyone believe a fat free, hormone-laced
pasteurized milk-like product from cows raised on genetically
engineered corn, flavored with artificial flavors, colors and
chemical sweeteners might actually do a growing body good? The
nutritional illiteracy within these agencies is staggering...
yet they’re responsible for making decisions that affect over 30
million school children across the US on a daily basis.
Take Action NOW! Let the FDA Know What You Think of the Proposed
Rule
The FDA is currently accepting public comments on this
petition. You have until May 21st, 2013 to submit your comments,
and I urge you to do so right away. You can submit your comments
electronically or via regular mail. For instructions, please see
the following link to the
Federal Register.
Milk Use Guidelines
While we are on topic of milk I would also like to add my
latest recommendations. As always of course, the only acceptable
dairy products would be raw unpasteurized organic varieties. Raw
is more important than organic so don’t be fooled. Although raw
milk is only available commercially in a few states in the US,
nearly everyone can get it be going to
RealMilk.com.
You should only drink whole milk; the lower the fat content
the more processed and less wholesome a food it is. It is also
probably wise for most adults, especially if they are
overweight, have diabetes, hypertension, or high cholesterol to
avoid drinking milk because of the sugar (lactose) content. For
those, fermented diary such as butter, cheeses and homemade
yogurts are a better choice.
Aspartame — A Trojan Horse that Can Wreck Your Health
Aspartame is primarily made up of aspartic acid and
phenylalanine. The phenylalanine has been synthetically modified
to carry a methyl group, which provides the majority of the
sweetness. That phenylalanine methyl bond, called a methyl
ester, is very weak, which allows the methyl group on the
phenylalanine to easily break off and form methanol.
You may have heard the claim that aspartame is harmless
because methanol is also found in fruits and vegetables.
However, in fruits and vegetables, the methanol is
firmly bonded to pectin, allowing it to be safely
passed through your digestive tract. Not so with the methanol
created by aspartame; there it’s not bonded to anything that can
help eliminate it from your body.
Methanol acts as a Trojan horse; it's carried into
susceptible tissues in your body, like your brain and bone
marrow, where the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) enzyme converts it
into formaldehyde, which wreaks havoc with sensitive proteins
and DNA. All animals EXCEPT HUMANS have a protective mechanism
that allows methanol to be broken down into harmless formic
acid. This is why toxicology testing on animals is a flawed
model. It doesn't fully apply to people.
There IS an Obvious Biological Explanation for Aspartame
Reactions...
The industry is fond of claiming that there’s “no biological
explanation” for the health problems reported by so many after
consuming aspartame. Of course this is meant to make you think
such reports aren’t true, or are unrelated to aspartame. Alas,
there is in fact an obvious biological explanation
according to Dr. Monte:
"'Here is the story: there is a major biochemical
problem here,' he says. 'Methyl alcohol is known
now, and has been known since 1940, to be metabolized
differently by humans from every other animal.'"
Here’s how it works: Both animals and humans have small
structures called peroxisomes in each cell. There are a couple
of hundred in every cell of your body, which are designed to
detoxify a variety of chemicals. Peroxisome contains catalase,
which help detoxify methanol. Other chemicals in the peroxisome
convert the formaldehyde to formic acid, which is harmless, but
this last step occurs only in animals. When methanol
enters the peroxisome of every animal except humans,
it gets into that mechanism. Humans do have the same number of
peroxisomes in comparable cells as animals, but human
peroxisomes cannot convert the toxic formaldehyde into
harmless formic acid.
So to recap: In humans, the methyl alcohol travels through
your blood vessels into sensitive areas, such as your brain,
that are loaded with ADH, which converts methanol to
formaldehyde. And since there's no catalase present, the
formaldehyde is free to cause enormous damage in your tissues.
Symptoms from methanol poisoning are many, and include
headaches, ear buzzing, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal
disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness
and shooting pains in the extremities, behavioral disturbances,
and neuritis. The most well known problems from methanol
poisoning are vision problems including misty vision,
progressive contraction of visual fields, blurring of vision,
obscuration of vision, retinal damage, and blindness.
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that causes retinal damage,
interferes with DNA replication and may cause birth defects.
A Historical Timeline of Aspartame
Aspartame is the number one source of side-effect complaints
to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with
over 10,000 complaints filed and over 91 symptoms documented
that are related to its consumption. With that many reports of
adverse effects, it's hard to believe aspartame is still allowed
on the market — let alone being weaseled in as an unlabeled
ingredient in dairy products of all kinds.
Unfortunately, aspartame's approval was and still is largely
a political affair. Many readers have long forgotten what the
60-Minutes' correspondent Mike Wallace stated in his 1996 report
on aspartame — that the approval of aspartame was "the most
contested in FDA history." And for good reason. At the time,
independent studies had found it caused brain cancer in lab
animals, and the studies submitted by G.D. Searle to the FDA for
the approval were quickly suspected of being sloppy at best.
To get an idea of of how aspartame made it through the FDA
approval process despite warning signs of potential health
hazards and alleged scientific fraud, take a look at the
historical timeline of aspartame:
The Most Dangerous Food Additive on the Market: Are You Being
Affected?
Unfortunately, aspartame toxicity is not well known by
physicians, despite its frequency. Diagnosis is also hampered by
the fact that it mimics several other common health conditions.
It’s quite possible that you could be having a reaction to
artificial sweeteners and not even know it, or be blaming it on
another cause. To determine if you're having a reaction to
artificial sweeteners, take the following steps:
Eliminate all artificial sweeteners
from your diet for two weeks.
After two weeks of being artificial sweetener-free,
reintroduce your artificial sweetener of choice in a
significant quantity (about three servings daily).
Avoid other artificial sweeteners during this period.
Do this for one to three days and notice how you feel,
especially as compared to when you were consuming no
artificial sweeteners.
If you don't notice a difference in how you feel after
re-introducing your primary artificial sweetener for a few
days, it's a safe bet you're able to tolerate it acutely,
meaning your body doesn't have an immediate, adverse
response. However, this doesn't mean your health won't be
damaged in the long run.
If you've been consuming more than one type of
artificial sweetener, you can repeat steps 2 through 4 with
the next one on your list.
If you do experience side effects from aspartame, please
report it to the FDA (if you live in the United States) without
delay. It's easy to make a report — just go to the
FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone
number for your state, and make a call reporting your reaction.
Will You Allow the Industry to Poison Dairy with Aspartame?
Again, if this proposed amendment goes through, anytime you
see the “milk” on the label, it could include any variety of
artificial sweeteners. Who knows where it might end. Imagine if
it goes further, and any processed food containing “milk”
becomes permitted to include artificial sweeteners without
listing them... This is a slippery slope I believe can only end
in destruction of health.
The FDA is currently accepting public comments on this
petition. You have until May 21st, 2013 to submit your comments,
and I urge you to do so right away. You can submit your comments
electronically or via regular mail. For instructions, please see
the following link to the
Federal Register.