Got milk? No, just lies - Page 16

Micaho, 

How is aspartame ever supposed to replace lactose? That is where you make no sense to me. Milk by its definiton, provided by Hexe in a prior post, must contain its own lactose. Anything added to milk, must be labeled. Flavorings are the only users of sweeteners, like aspartame.  I would agree that any labels making a claim of "low calorie" would have to be specific to the flavorings, and not the milk.

Why does that make people raving with this news seem to do so with a religious-like fervor? I just don't know.

Bee,

I think people don't want big companies secretly adding chemicals to their foods to make them addictive like tobacco companies did with cigarettes for so many years.  Artificial sweetners increase rather than satisfy sugar cravings.  Research indicates diet beverages more often lead to weight gain than to weight loss.  Our taste becomes so used to the concentrates that it does't even recognize the flavor of natural sugar in normal amounts after awhile.  Personally, I dislike aspartame and want to know if it is in a product so I can avoid it.  I don't consider it "religious zeal" to want to know what is in my food.  This thread has made me wonder what is in Lactaid which I like.  Apparently, it has more calories from sugar than milk with lactose, so hopefully Lactaid doesn't use artifical sweetners.

Well you don't have to avoid white milk because white milk doesn't have aspartame and it never will.

Micaho,

The odd correlation to what I consider the most unhealthy food choices found, because of the increased calories with certain labels that sound healthy that happened with the "no fat" label debacle, are valid concerns. I agree you should take a close look at that Lactaid lable!  That is the type of education that needs to made known to the rank and file family shopper, because let's face it, some will only buy with their cents and not health sense. What would be really helpful for society, I think, is figuring out why all the healthiest, less processed foods cost more, and what we should do about it.

(And the thing about cigs... the most addictive thing is the nicotine and that didn't need to be added!)  On food addictions... or predilections, our tastebuds do get overloaded with sugar and salt, and my own personal experience tells me, that can be reversed, but so much easier to make worse! 

I have the opposite experience with that "sugar soda vs. diet soda with sweetener" study as for me, the culprit was calories... not sugars, it just is that refined sugars pack the most empty calories compared to a natural sugar in honey. I would suspect that one was funded by Cane Sugar institute... ;)
 

Nicotine was added and manipulated, additives introduced without any concern for health but rather profits.
Where was the oversight.
They do what they want because they have the power that comes from money just like every other billion dollar monopoly.

They'll do it when ever and where ever they can get away with it.
 

How can anyone be sure that aspartame "never will" be added to
ordinary, white milk ?  I would not consider that a safe bet, Admin.

Think Micaho has the right perceptions on this whole issue.

Point of fact,
thirty years ago I worked in a packing plant, we processed meats for schools and several local burger joints.
if you knew what they were putting it that meat back then you'd never eat meat again, it has only gotten worst since.



 

If someone doesn't trust the definition of milk, put out by their own government, then they will likey share Micaho's doubts. In all things, most likely? Hmmm? What ever is a person to do without trust, except depend only on himself, true? Now, is that really practical? And certainly not a help if we care how food is supplied globally, even about whether or not some stranger baby is dying for the lack of milk in a foreign land.


For Joan:

IF, is the comprehension... it IS the scare tactic. Back up the IF... with what?  Please explain that very S I M P L Y, without the nonsense of a silly expectation that something bad will happen in the future if this, IF, somehow comes true. 

How do you see aspartame replacing lactose in milk in the future? That is a simple enough question for the IFers.
 

Again, I'll answer you to ask Macaho. I didn't read or claim that lactose is going to bee replaced with aspartame. Again, the rest of your post is non-sense. Also, the original article for this thread is about aspartame being added to milk used for milk products, such as yogurt. That milk is going to bee redefined to include aspartame as a part of the natural makeup of the milk used for milk products (NOT RAW MILK or MILLLK TO BEE CONSUMED AS IN A GLASS OF MILLK). The aspartame milk product will not require mention of the artificial sweetener on label, since according to the re-definition of the millk used in milk products, the artificial sweetener is part of the new and improved definition of milk, but not the milk you drink from a glass, or mug or cup, or bowl (as in bowl of cereal). Lactose will still bee in the new and improved milk to bee used for milk products. Unless 'they' decide 'they' can improve the new and improved milk for milk products further by removing the lactose, then 'they' probably would remove the lactose, because we know 'they' have our (the consumer schmucks') best interest at heart.

The article is not the authority Joan, don't you get that part. The definition of "milk"  is not going to be redefined. You just won't understand that. That is your scary part. But you want to believe it and scream it, go ahead.