Got milk? No, just lies - Page 15

BTW, Hexe, if you have information which refutes the article, I will be glad to read it without all screaming and shouting. I just took a gander at your post where you say the author of the article would not like the slaughter and consumption of my goats. I didn't see anything in the article alluding to that conclusion. Nor did I see any reference to dairy farmers asking to have definition of milk changed to include aspartame as a natural ingredient so that the aspartame doesn't need to be ON THE LABLE OF MILK PRODUCTS (not to include a container of 'milk'). He also states that only in US are raw milk farmers treated like terrorists. He also believes that commercial animal farming is cruel....i think so, too. So, not that it has any bearing on the article, where do you see this guy is " of animal activist mindset"? Because even if a person is of animal activist mindset, doesn't mean they don't have something valid to say.

Oh good grief. Not again. Your rewording is like a pretzel. Carry on, oh, Most-High-Devout-One with Goats.  

No sweeteners are listed on the label of any milk product that does not have additives. No additves will be listed on milk sold as milk if it has no additives. Only milk with sweeteners added will be considered to have an approved additive. Only milk with sweeteners thus far, are flavored milk products such as chocolate milk or vanilla yogurt but certainly not limited to these examples.

What's your point, Bee?

Joan, why don't you tell me the truth as you see it in the plainest English you can muster up. And we'll go from there. If you would be kind enough to clarify if it was you who thought up the title of this thread, all on your own, so I can attribute correct authorship and a presumed shared sentiment? And if you can go into some detail as to exactly what you mean by, "but if enough people know the truth, it won't sell." Specifically what you are referring to as "the truth"?
 

Got milk? No, just lies

Monsanto and big dairy will get their way, but if enough people know the truth, it won't sell. The gov will instead have to help them get rid of the poison they produce by buying it and giving it to starving people around the world.

The truth is that "they" want to add artificial sweeteners to milk used for milk products with out putting it on the lable. That is stated clearly in the article. If people know the truth, who are smart enough not to want ingest artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, they won't buy it.

joanro, as I said before--I researched the subject before venturing to comment, and did so through multiple avenues, instead of relying on JUST the article you posted to open the thread. That means I also looked into the background of the author of the article, beyond the words of his that you posted here. I invite anyone, everyone, to do a simple web search on "Mike Adams health ranger", and THEN consider whether his viewpoint can be counted upon to be 100% accurate and factual and absent of speculative leaps. The author of the article that opened this thread is anti-red meat, and believes that the only true, healthy food regimen for humans is raw veganism.

I don't comment on topics that should be discussed on the merits of science and factual information instead of opinion, unless I've done the research beforehand. I've already posted the information to refute the claims made in the original article posted--I not only posted the link to the Federal regulations, but went an additional step further and posted the legal definition of milk according to Federal law AND the information regarding what additives are presently permitted AND the requirements for such additives to be name separately on the product label.  The regulations and facts are sufficient to refute the false claims made in that article, joanro, but as with everything, one can lead the horse to the water but cannot make them drink.  There's really nothing left for me to say on this particular topic, other than I certainly didn't expect you to reverse your position and concur that the article was not correct in claiming that aspartame added to milk would not be required to be listed on the product label if the FDA grants the petition's request.  Believe what you will, just don't complain when someone else refutes that belief with documented facts.















Edited to correct typing error by inserting highlighted word

Don't y'all just love the right to choose. Wanna drink raw milk, it's available, drink it.

Blitzen,

What I find interesting about the raw milk religiouslike followers, isn't that they can't find and drink the stuff, but that there is a certain customer that will possibly be at risk because they will buy into the idea that so-and-so's kid only ever drank raw milk, and never had a fever his whole life!

These potential customers might just be searching for a milk for a baby who is allergy sensitive, and has an immature, immune deficient system, as most babies do who aren't breastfed.  These babies would be the one's saved with a pastureized, product. Without that, then it would be paramount that the cleanliness standards of the supplier be beyond reproach.

Joanro,

I think your conclusions from this alarmist article are just off-base. Aspartame will be labeled with any other additives, sweeteners or not, so don't you worry about it, it is for people who buy flavored milk. I never buy flavored milk for myself or my family. So if someone does, they probably just don't think aspartame is a problem.

 

I've never tasted raw milk, never really thought about it until this thread.  If I decided to try it, I'd want to be sure it came from a dairy where sanitation was their number one priority or it came from my own cow. I've been to a large number of dairy farms to TB and blood test some large herds and I've seen some very questionable barns and animal husbandry practices. I stopped eating veal after my second farm call LOL.
 

Sounds like the topic of this post has gone way off base.  It wasn't about the virtues or evils of raw milk, or about current food labeling laws or practices.  It is about a petition to change how milk may be defined in the future.  Having re-read the petition, I think the dairy industry is objecting to using descriptions like "low calorie" or "reduced calorie" on the packaging to explain the additive aspartame under the ingredients listing.  Since milk naturally contains lactose which is not listed as the separate ingredient "sugar," if aspartame replaces lactose, the characteristic sweetness of the milk doesn't change enough to consider it a different product in their opinion.
Usually "low calorie" is a selling point, so I'm not sure why this is important to the industry except for savings on packaging.  But it may be important for diabetics, people with lactose intolerance, and for those who avoid aspartame for health reasons such as migraines.  It sounds like people will have to read the fine print to know the difference between various flavored milk products which is always good practice.  To eliminate the aspartame ingredient listing entirely  would be a big step backwards.