This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Red Sable on 07 March 2013 - 14:03
Joanro and BE!!Good for you gals!
BE, I've drank raw milk all my life as did the other 9 in my family, amazing how we ever survived.
Your son will be much healthier do to your lifestyle, kudo's.
by Two Moons on 07 March 2013 - 14:03
We have the right to know what's in the things we consume.
Apparently our government and it's FDA does not think so, they've been paid not to think or do anything about it.
Apparently our government and it's FDA does not think so, they've been paid not to think or do anything about it.
by beetree on 07 March 2013 - 16:03
This must be what a raw-milk-fan defense with a "religious like fervor", looks like. 
by hexe on 07 March 2013 - 16:03
OK, now that I've had a few minutes to actually look at the facts of the 'deceitful' intentions of the dairy industry's petition to the FDA as referenced at the start of this thread, I find that it is, as expected, greatly exaggerated.
The dairy industry--and I do mean the INDUSTRY, not the dairy farmers themselves--has asked the FDA to allow them to label flavored product that has been sweetened with aspartame as MILK. That's it. That's all they're asking--they aren't asking to be permitted to add aspartame and not mention it on the label, they aren't even asking for permission to add aspartame...they already CAN add aspartame. What they presently CAN'T do, without specific authorization from the FDA, is make chocolate milk that's been sweetened with aspartame instead of sugar AND then slap a label on it that says 'Artificially sweetened chocolate MILK." They can't call it milk at this moment because under the FDA regulations, the product is no longer just milk once it's had anything added to it other than what's already approved--vitamin D and the stuff traditionally used to make flavored milks. At present, if they substitute aspartame for sugar in chocolate milk, they'd have to call it a 'milk product' or 'milk drink', similar to the processed yellow squares of stuff labeled 'cheese food' that some folks just call 'cheese'.
IF the FDA agrees to the milk INDUSTRY'S request, milk that is sweetened with aspartame will still be required to have that fact stated on the product label--granting the industry's request will not alter that. The request ONLY seeks to allow the industry to still call the finished product 'milk' and not a 'milk drink' or 'milk beverage', etc.
Most of the dairy FARMERS I've spoken with are NOT in favor of the notion of even adding aspartame, and have told their creameries how they feel--but the processors are convinced that they need to be able to offer a sugar-free version of chocolate milk in order to be attractive to parents who might [mistakenly] think that regular chocolate milk is a big contributor to their children being overweight. I'd venture to say the farmers are right--search far and wide, and you're not going to find a single kid whose weight problem has any tie to drinking the traditional versions of chocolate milk. Sodas, chips, Doritos, sure--but chocolate milk, no, I'm sure you're not going to find that kid who ballooned up because they're drinking a half-gallon of chocolate milk per day.
And now I'm going to get myself a glass of TrueMoo chocolate milk--the whole milk version, too. All this talk of chocolate milk has made me thirsty, and I love whole milk, chocolate or plain!
The dairy industry--and I do mean the INDUSTRY, not the dairy farmers themselves--has asked the FDA to allow them to label flavored product that has been sweetened with aspartame as MILK. That's it. That's all they're asking--they aren't asking to be permitted to add aspartame and not mention it on the label, they aren't even asking for permission to add aspartame...they already CAN add aspartame. What they presently CAN'T do, without specific authorization from the FDA, is make chocolate milk that's been sweetened with aspartame instead of sugar AND then slap a label on it that says 'Artificially sweetened chocolate MILK." They can't call it milk at this moment because under the FDA regulations, the product is no longer just milk once it's had anything added to it other than what's already approved--vitamin D and the stuff traditionally used to make flavored milks. At present, if they substitute aspartame for sugar in chocolate milk, they'd have to call it a 'milk product' or 'milk drink', similar to the processed yellow squares of stuff labeled 'cheese food' that some folks just call 'cheese'.
IF the FDA agrees to the milk INDUSTRY'S request, milk that is sweetened with aspartame will still be required to have that fact stated on the product label--granting the industry's request will not alter that. The request ONLY seeks to allow the industry to still call the finished product 'milk' and not a 'milk drink' or 'milk beverage', etc.
Most of the dairy FARMERS I've spoken with are NOT in favor of the notion of even adding aspartame, and have told their creameries how they feel--but the processors are convinced that they need to be able to offer a sugar-free version of chocolate milk in order to be attractive to parents who might [mistakenly] think that regular chocolate milk is a big contributor to their children being overweight. I'd venture to say the farmers are right--search far and wide, and you're not going to find a single kid whose weight problem has any tie to drinking the traditional versions of chocolate milk. Sodas, chips, Doritos, sure--but chocolate milk, no, I'm sure you're not going to find that kid who ballooned up because they're drinking a half-gallon of chocolate milk per day.
And now I'm going to get myself a glass of TrueMoo chocolate milk--the whole milk version, too. All this talk of chocolate milk has made me thirsty, and I love whole milk, chocolate or plain!
by joanro on 07 March 2013 - 17:03
The way I read it, aspartame can be added to milk that is in any product without putting on ingredient list...that the milk will have aspartame as a normal ingredient, making it normal and unnecessary to mention.
by beetree on 07 March 2013 - 17:03
Joanro you aren't reading it wrong just to scare people into a religious like fervor, would you then? 
Because what Hexe wrote is the real deal, straight from the teat, 100% unadulterated, moo juice truth.
Because what Hexe wrote is the real deal, straight from the teat, 100% unadulterated, moo juice truth.
by joanro on 07 March 2013 - 17:03
Bee, why bee so funny? I'll reread it and get back to you. I sure wouldn't want to scare people into any kind of fervor. I don't drink moo milk, but I usta buy yogurt. (but of course 'usta' died).
by joanro on 07 March 2013 - 19:03
Second paragraph, not mention the title. Says 'redefine' milk to include aspartame, not list on lable. No, I did not mis-read the article. bee, if you want aspartame, have at it, but people have the right to know what crap is in the crap they ingest.
by beetree on 07 March 2013 - 19:03
I would bet you anything you took that way out of context. You really should quote the whole thing, or I'll have to get funny, all over again. The distinction is that this has to do with ALREADY FLAVORED milk. Sigh..... not what you are saying at all.
by joanro on 07 March 2013 - 20:03
BEE,BEE, BEE. They want to redefine milk, so that they can add aspartame as a sweetener without putting it on the LABLE that ASPARTAME is in the MILK that is in the YOGURT, or whatever else is made from MILK that needs to TASTE SWEET. Not telling the poor schmucks buy ing their crap that aspartame is in the crap, is the problemo.? Comprende?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top