PDA

View Full Version : Aspartame-Thanks Rummy



Keith Millea
12-14-2008, 10:47 PM
Artificial sweeteners ARE poisonous.If you just ask Donald(genocide)Rumsfield....No wait,he won't tell you.......



Aspartame Use Part of Planetary Biomedical Genocide
The fact that tons of aspartame is pumped into the world population each year, knowingly and deliberately, especially with the historical and documented record of fraud and misrepresentation, constitutes a conspiracy of the highest order, as well as criminal negligence. The rewards of continued use are increased profits for the medical and pharmaceutical industries and chemical companies who produce aspartame and treat people suffering from the effect of it. Aspartame is the only biochemical warfare product on grocery shelves. And, the band plays on ....





http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/fraud.htm

Magda Hassan
12-15-2008, 01:51 AM
Thanks for this Keith. Dr Mercola's website is a good source for quality health information. It shows that Rumsfeld has a long association with disreputable and unethical business practices and no regard for human life anywhere. Unfortunately it also shows business as usual in the corporate world. It also shows how some parts of government, in this case Defense, and other parts, FDA, can be working on similar or same issues but for different goals. Scientific results are frequently manipulated to conform with the business interests of the chemical/pharmaceutical/medical entity conducting the research. That there is no standard independent testing and verification of this process shows how intertwined business and government agencies are and who they really work for.

David Guyatt
12-15-2008, 11:26 AM
Wasn't it one of Rummy's companies that benefited enormously from the massive (but fake it seems) bird flu scare a year or so ago?

Magda Hassan
12-15-2008, 11:31 AM
Yes, it was David. It made the Tamiflu vaccination for the virus. It is not a particularly effective vaccine but it was the only one around and it was bought in huge quantities by the US and other governments as a 'precautionary' measure. I had some documents on this on an old computer which I can't get to right now but I will look later for them.

Keith Millea
12-16-2008, 04:35 AM
Stevia

A natural sweetener.Used by many countries,especially Japan.Grow your own........

http://www.vegsource.com/davis/sweeteners.htm

Keith

Myra Bronstein
12-24-2008, 11:06 PM
Artificial sweeteners ARE poisonous.If you just ask Donald(genocide)Rumsfield....No wait,he won't tell you.......

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/fraud.htm

Oh yeah, my head knew early on that NutraSweet was toxic. It caused killer migraines. Obviously I stopped using it.

I'm glad you posted on this topic Keith. Naomi Klein talks about it on pg 289 of The Shock Doctrine (Chapter title--Cheney an Rumsfeld: Proto-Disaster Capitalists):

"Rumsfeld survived being passed over as Reagan's runnning mate by throwing himself into his burgeoning business career. As CEO of the international drug and chemical company Searle Pharmaceuticals, he used his political connections to secure the contraversial and extraordinarily lucrative Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for aspartame (marketed as NutraSweet); and when Rumsfeld brokered the deal to sell Searle to Monsanto he personally earned an estimated $12 million."

Myra Bronstein
12-24-2008, 11:13 PM
Yes, it was David. It made the Tamiflu vaccination for the virus. It is not a particularly effective vaccine but it was the only one around and it was bought in huge quantities by the US and other governments as a 'precautionary' measure. I had some documents on this on an old computer which I can't get to right now but I will look later for them.

Again Naomi Klein talks about Rumsfeld and Tamiflu in the same chapter I cited above, page 290:

"It was in 1997, when Rumsfeld was named chairman of the board of the biotech firm Gilead Sciences, that he would firmly establish himself as a proto disaster capitalist. The company had registered the patent for Tamiflu, a treatment for many kinds of influenza and the preferred drug for avian flue. [Footnote about dangers of taking Tamiflu.] If there was ever an outbreak of the highly contagious virus (or the threat of one), governments would be forced to buy billions of dollars' worth of the treatment from Gilead Sciences...."

Keith Millea
12-25-2008, 03:34 AM
Coca Cola and Cargill Team up.:eek:

http://www.rense.com/general84/truvia.htm

What's Really In It?
Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum
12-17-8
An email to Betty... I am concerned about Truvia. Truvia claims it is an extract of the stevia plant. However I am concerned that big pharma has added something so they can patent it. What is known about the process of getting Truvia from stevia? I know that Coca Cola is starting to use it even though FDA has not approved it. I don't trust any of the big outfits including the FDA. If you have any information on this could you please send it to me. Thank you. Dallas Van Wagoner, MD (retired) Dear Doctor Van Wagoner, I am just as concerned about it as you are. The Stevia leaf itself is safe. Somewhere I have all the studies. The FDA based their "not safe" on a study that was in reality an experiment in animal cruelty by a student, and funded by a chemical lab in Brazil that no one could find. If you get real stevia leaf, green, its safe and healthful. However, many times additives are added to it, like in Brazil they add the poisonous excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic aspartame to it. Coke said they heard the people and they were going to use Stevia. However, I told everyone who mentioned it, they would not replace poisonous aspartame in Diet Coke, but rather they would just make a drink that had it to gain a part of the population who knew Diet Coke was deadly. That is what has come to pass. They said they will not replace the Diet Coke. Because its addictive and a cash cow they know addicted people would change to another product that had the poison in it and keep the addiction. Also, the symptoms from aspartame would disappear and they would know it was Diet coke that poisoned them. Earlier reports said they could manipulate the stevia or genetically engineer the product. After I first read those I knew there might be "something" from the stevia plant but it wouldn't be stevia, just some part of the plant to gain the use of part of the population. I believe Truvia should be analyzed by independents to find out what it contains and studies done. It says not approved by the FDA but remember that the FDA will do anything for industry, so expect it. Yes, actual stevia is GRAS but then when someone put it in tea the FDA made them take it out, and said it could only be put in herbal products because its a dietary supplement. Why a dietary supplement couldn't be put in food is absurd. It's okay to put aspartame in food and classified as an additive when its a neurotoxic drug and the medical text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic by H. J. Roberts, M.D., is 1000 pages of diseases, cancer, diabetes, obesity and other horrors. An additive by law has to be inert, but then the FDA doesnn't care about the law. It's okay to put Splenda in food and its a chlorocarbon poison liberating chlorine, and was found on a China site under "insecticides". They moved it over to sweeteners when we exposed it. http://www.wnho.net/splenda_chlorocarbon.htm The FDA is just Big Pharma's Washington Branch Office. They continue to approve poisons and if anyone knows aspartame is poison its the FDA who lies to the public. They are the very ones who tried to have the company indicted for fraud and revoked the petition for approval until Donald Rumsfeld used political chicanery to get it on the market. http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/rumsfeld.html Also, you are exactly right about the patent. That was the first thing that made me suspicious. You cannot patent a natural product, the green stevia leaf. So they have manipulated and added to it, and who in the world would believe Coke? After all the National Soft Drink Assn (now American Beverage) wrote a 30 page protest on aspartame that was added to the congressional record. They knew it was adulterated and they mentioned what Searle did to fix the studies like not using the right test so it wouldn't pick up the aspartic acid. http://www.mpwhi.com/open_letter_dick_adamson.htm Coke and Pepsi can't hide from the fact they knew the gun was loaded. We boycott the soft drink companies for this reason. Why give them profit when they knew using aspartame would kill. That's the reason they put it in the congressional record, because after protesting they lobbied for NutraSweet with full knowledge. The only thing I can do is agree with everything you said, doctor. Truvia has to be tested with long term studies by independent researchers not industry. It has to be analyzed to know if this is another genetically engineered product like aspartame. Coke and Pepsi can take a good thing, pure Stevia, and make it into something that is not fit to drink. It worries me that if it tastes okay people will use it, and suffer the consequences. Is it going to be addictive to add to their profit? Will they add a small amount of aspartame to it and not label it? Every question has to be answered. I happen to live in Atlanta, home of Coca Cola. I grew up on it. It was an entirely different product and they couldn't leave well enough alone with citric acid but had to change to phosphoric acid which is cheaper. That's why many people use Coke to clean their toilets, that's what toilet bowl cleaner is, phosphoric acid. Think what it can do to the body. People ask me all the time why aspartame is still on the market with the background that is provable from the public records. I tell them for the same reason as tobacco, addiction, profit and greed. Think of the millions of babies who are murdered in their mother's womb because aspartame is an abortifacient and teratogen, with not the decency of a warning for pregnant women. One woman drank Diet Coke through 3 pregnancies and had 3 autistic children. Do you think Coke cares? They knew it from the beginning. I don't believe Coke and Pepsi deserve one cent of profit for participating in the mass poisoning of consumers in the US and 100 countries of the world. I think everyone should boycott them. If they would use aspartame knowing the gun was loaded, why would anyone trust Coke with Truvia. When the FDA embargoed stevia years ago to please the manufacturers of aspartame, I fought for it - fought for what is healthy, the pure green stevia leaf. I would no more put Truvia in my mouth than I would aspartame. Coke and Pepsi blew it putting profit and greed before health with aspartame. How does the saying go, "Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me." So pure stevia with no additives is fine. Just Like Sugar is safe (www.justlikesugarinc.com (http://www.justlikesugarinc.com)) made with only chicory, orange peel, Vitamin C and Calcium. Before neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., (www.russellblaylockmd.com (http://www.russellblaylockmd.com)) would endorse it he insisted on it being analyzed. Then he wrote in his newsletter, The Blaylock Wellness Report, "Finally a safe sweetener". Until Truvia is analyzed my personal opinion is continue to boycott Coke and Pepsi who have participated in the mass poisoning of the world with full knowledge. If you just have to have a cola regardless, go to Whole Foods. They make their own with citric acid and sugar. I do believe their aluminum cans should be changed to glass. I recommend using healthy drinks instead and Whole Foods has an aisle full of them. They ban aspartame and Splenda. Also, notice that Pepsi has teamed up with a subsidiary of Merisant. Who is Merisant? A manufacturer of aspartame!!! The public should not be fooled again. They should demand the truth and absolutely, emphatic independent studies from unbiased researchers. All my best, Betty www.mpwhi.com,www.dorway.com (http://www.dorway.com) and www.wnho.net (http://www.wnho.net) Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame (http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame) Coca-Cola Could Launch Stevia
Drink Ahead Of FDA GRASBy Sarah Hills12-15-8 Coca-Cola is expected to launch a drink sweetened with stevia in the US this week, according to reports, but there is still no word from the FDA on GRAS status. Coca-Cola plans to market three flavors of a juice drink in its Odwalla line that contain the sweetener, sources told The Wall Street Journal. And if it does, the move would intensify competition with rival drinks maker PepsiCo, which has already said it is poised to launch two drinks sweetened with stevia in the US - SoBe Life Water and Trop 50. These are ready to launch as soon as it is given the green light by the Food and Drug Administraion (FDA). Scott Williamson, spokesman for Coca-Cola North America, declined to comment on whether it was planning to launch a stevia sweetened drink in the US this week, or if it was prepared to do so without FDA GRAS. However he told FoodNavigator-USA.com: "As we have said, we plan to continue to innovate with multiple products using the new sweetener." Coca-Cola has teamed up with Cargill to develop their own stevia-derived product called Truvia, while PepsiCo has partnered with the Whole Earth Sweetener Company (a subsidiary of Merisant) to produce its own brand called PureVia. Merisant Company and Cargill have both notified the FDA that rebiana (the common name for high-purity Rebaudioside A from stevia) should have FDA GRAS (generally recognized as safe) for use in food and beverages. The outcome is pending and although some in the industry have said they expect an FDA decision on rebiana soon, an FDA spokesman recently told FoodNavigator-USA.com that there is no specific date for completion of its review. This is because the GRAS notification program is a voluntary program and FDA does not have a legally mandated timeframe for completing the review of a GRAS notice. Potential market Meanwhile stevia is already permitted for sale in the US as a dietary supplement on the basis of its low glycemic index. Rebiana, or Reb-A, is the sweetest, purest part of the stevia leaf and reportedly about 200 times as sweet as sugar. The US market for stevia is estimated to be worth about $60m, a figure analysts say could triple with FDA GRAS.

Just Grow it......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

Keith

Keith Millea
09-24-2009, 02:01 AM
This is a great documentary!You will be checking lables after you watch it.I just found that Aspartame is an ingredient in one of my meds.Insidious indeed!!!!!!!:banghead:

http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=244

"Sweet Misery"

This film explores the important issue of aspartame toxicity in a documentary that implores viewers to take consider the potentially damaging effects of the common food additive. A sugar substitute that is found in NutraSweet and many common diet drinks, aspartame is alleged to cause toxic reactions in the human body that can result in a wide variety of physical and mental ailments. In stating their claim that aspartame toxicity is perhaps the most insidious representation of corporate negligence since tobacco, Brackett and Waldron offer compelling evidence about a potentially deadly phenomenon. http://freedocumentaries.org/images/transparente.gif

Magda Hassan
02-09-2012, 02:24 AM
TUE FEB 07, 2012 AT 03:18 PM PST
What Can You Do To Avoid Monsanto's New, Deadlier Neurotoxic Sweetener? Very Little (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/07/1062601/-What-Can-You-Do-To-Avoid-Monsanto-s-New-Deadlier-Neurotoxic-Sweetener-Very-Little-)byeXtina (http://www.dailykos.com/user/eXtina)Fol (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/07/1062601/-What-Can-You-Do-To-Avoid-Monsanto-s-New-Deadlier-Neurotoxic-Sweetener-Very-Little-?via=siderec#?friend_id=160999&is_stream=1)






Short of completely avoiding processed food, growing your own, and getting to know your local farmer, there is very little you can realistically do to avoid ingesting Neotame, the new and improved version of the neurotoxic artificial sweetner Aspartame. Get it - Neo - new Aspartame? Not even buying certified organic is a reliable way to avoid it, not only in beverages but in all the food you eat, because no labeling of its presence is required.


Aspartame can step aside. (http://www.gaia-health.com/articles351/000368-neotame-neurotoxic-fda-says-no-lable.shtml) There's a new sweetener in town and it isn't saddled with the inconvenience of having to be listed on labels, so it can be sneaked into any prepared food, even USDA so-called Organic. So sayeth the FDA. Neotame is a Monsanto-created chemical similar to Aspartame, including its neurotoxic properties.If you thought that you could find it on a food label, or that it would have to be listed on food that is certified organic, you would be wrong. The labeling requirements that applied to Aspartame were dropped for Neotame.

The food labeling requirements required for aspartame have now been dropped for Neotame, and no one is clear (http://farmwars.info/?p=4897)why this was allowed to happen.
As Monsanto's patent for Aspartame was nearing expiration, they developed the strategy of adding a hazardous chemical to to it, making it sweeter, and more toxic, and calling it Neotame. There was no trouble in getting FDA approval, which then also waived labeling requirements.

Monsanto developed Neotame as their Aspartame patent was expiring, and had no trouble in gaining FDA approval in 2002. They added 3-dimethylbutyl, a chemical listed as hazardous by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to Aspartame, making it both sweeter and more toxic.Both Aspartame and Neotame contain substances that are metabolized into formaldehyde, a highly toxic poison, and an excitotoxic amino acid that agitates, thereby damaging, nerves.

Neotame has similar structure to aspartame (http://www.holisticmed.com/neotame/toxin.html) -- except that, from it's structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame. This potential increase in toxicity will make up for the fact that less will be used in diet drinks. Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid.Even Monsanto's own pre-approval studies of neotame revealed adverse reactions. Unfortunately, Monsanto only conducted a few one-day studies in humans rather than encouraging independent researchers to obtain NIH funding to conduct long-term human studies on the effects of neotame.
Neotame can even be ingested second-hand because it is used in animal feed. A product calledSweetos (http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ensigns-health-launches-cattlefeed-sweetener/413158/), containing Neotame, is fed to cattle in place of molasses, to cover up the smell of rancid food they are fed. This will never make it into any label. Why would the FDA loosen the labeling requirements for this product?

It looks like the FDA's loosening (http://www.gaia-health.com/articles351/000368-neotame-neurotoxic-fda-says-no-lable.shtml) of labeling rules for Neotame is part of a large-scale effort to make it a near-ubiquitous artificial sweetener, to be found on the tabletop, in all prepared foods—even organics—and even in the meats consumed.Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Michael Taylor was appointed (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm170842.htm) in 2009 by President Obama to the newly created post of Senior Adviser to the Commissioner of the FDA. Michael Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylo), noted 'food safety expert' has long history of boucing between jobs as lawyer to Monsanto, working for Monsanto, being a lobbyist for Monsanto, a position at the USDA, and going back and forth from there to the FDA.There was much objection (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html) to his appointment when it was originally made, and it only took two years for a negative predicted result to happen. This is a classic example of the revolving door between lobbyists for and from large business, and their appointments to government agencies where they rule favorably for the corporations. This was supposed to stop in President Obama's administration.
There is a petition (http://signon.org/sign/tell-obama-to-cease-fda?source=homepage) at Signon.Org objecting to the appointment of Michael Taylor to the FDA and calling on President Obama to cut ties with Monsanto.


ORIGINALLY POSTED TO WWW.BAREFOOTHOOFCARE.WORDPRESS.COM (http://www.dailykos.com/blog/eXtina/) ON TUE FEB 07, 2012 AT 03:18 PM PST.ALSO REPUBLISHED BY SCIENCE MATTERS (http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Science%20Matters/), SUSTAINABLE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Sustainable%20Food%20and%20Agriculture/), ANDKANSAS CITY KOSSAKS (http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Kansas%20City%20Kossaks/).http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/07/1062601/-What-Can-You-Do-To-Avoid-Monsanto-s-New-Deadlier-Neurotoxic-Sweetener-Very-Little-?via=siderec

Peter Lemkin
11-16-2013, 09:35 AM
Related: “Genetically Modified BACTERIA Used to Make NutraSweet (http://www.constantinereport.com/genetically-modified-bacteria-used-to-make-nutrasweet/)“
Heard the saying, “you are what you eat”? Well, brace yourself. Aspartame, the junk found in diet food, like soda, candy, etc., is actually – drum roll please – bacteria poop!The patent was first filed in 1981, but this is the first time it is being made public. From the report, we learn that it is harvested from the excrement of GM E. coli bacteria.
Dude, that’s awesome! – NOT!!
The E. Coli is grown in tanks. When they take a dump, that stuff is collected because it contains the protein aspartic acid-phenylalanine amino acid. Once treated with methanol, it then becomes the artificial sweetener.
Now, let’s be real. This is still not enough for me, at least, to give up my Coke Zero. And no, I’m not curious to even read the label of my beloved Coke Zero for a content check. But it is at least good to know. From crack cocaine to bacteria poop – man, we’ve come a long way. I guess I should end with the old coke adage: “Have a Coke and a smile!”
Thanks, Monsanto!

Magda Hassan
11-19-2013, 11:26 PM
The dairy industry in competing with sports drinks and soft drinks wants to make milk sweeter and the 'low calorie' milk will have aspartame. But the dairy industry also wants to change the definition of milk so all of this is not declared.




Dairy Industry Pushing To Expand Definition Of ‘Milk’

November 11, 2013 11:32 PM


SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) – Good old-fashioned milk – packed with protein, calcium and micronutrients – has landed in the middle of a food fight with sugary sodas, sports drinks, even bottled water.
Overall, sales of milk are down a whopping 25 percent since 1975. The dairy industry is now trying to rise to the top with a new plan that focuses on flavored milk like chocolate, strawberry or vanilla.
The plan leaves some with a sour taste in their mouth. The desired target is kids, and while children can greatly benefit from the nutrients in milk, nutritionists are not in support of the plan.
According to a petition filed with the FDA (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products), this plan would change the very definition of what milk is. It would change what’s called the “standard of identify” for milk and for 17 other dairy products.“The dairy industry is simply interested in selling more products – that’s all they’re interested in. They want to sell more milk,” saidProfessor Marion Nestle (http://www.foodpolitics.com/), Nestle is the Paulette Goddard Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University, and author of many books on food, politics and public health.
The change would allow dairy producers to add artificial sweeteners to flavored milk without having to clearly say so on the front. Flavored Milk that is currently sweetened with artificial sweeteners would no longer be called a dairy drink, but milk.
Imagine if you’re shopping: under the proposal, a bottle of low-calorie chocolate milk would look just like a bottle of regular chocolate milk from the front. The only difference would be noticeable on the back of the product, under the ingredient list. And the artificial sweetener would not be listed as the well-known brand names but as their scientific names. According to some nutritionists, that will make it very difficult for consumers, parents and kids to know what they are buying.
“The front of the label is really what helps consumers make decisions quickly,” said Registered Dietician Sonya Angelone, who spoke on behalf of The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. “People don’t want to go to the grocery store and spend a lot of time trying to decipher the labels and figure out what’s in there or what might not be in there.”
Angelone said that her organization – the world’s largest group of nutrition experts – is urging the FDA to deny the petition (http://cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/academy_comments_to_fda_milk_standard_of_identity. pdf).
“There isn’t substantial evidence that the rationale for hiding it in the back is actually a good one.” said Angelone.

Dairy industry representatives have said they are not hiding anything. They said kids won’t buy products that are labeled “low calorie” and that this proposed change will help kids cut down on unwanted calories and fight the ongoing epidemic of childhood obesity
Angelone is skeptical. She said sweetened milk is not the driving factor behind the obesity problem in kids.
“There really isn’t any evidence for this because, right now, sweetened milk is not a real big source of sugar anyway,” said Angelone.
Professor Nestle said he believes kids should not grow to expect that everything they eat or drink has to be sweet, that they need to develop and explore all tastes in food.
“I just object to the idea that everything for kids has to be sweet,” said Professor Nestle. “Milk doesn’t have to be sweet.”
And while the FDA has stated that artificial sweeteners are safe, the prestigious Institute of Medicine issued a report detailing how there is still uncertainty about its long-term use (http://cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/foodinschools.pdf) on the health and development of children.
“There really is a lack of data or evidence,” concluded Angelone.
KPIX 5 dropped by one family’s home and found kids eating cookies and drinking milk after school. We asked their moms what they thought about the petition, and the moms were clear: go ahead and put artificial sweeteners in flavored milks but don’t murk up the labels.
“I think that anything that has an artificial element should be labeled clearly on the front,“ said Lori Beth Eisenstadt.
Fellow mom and friend Erika Vooelker agreed.




Flavored Milk; Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products

A Proposed Rule by the Food and Drug Administration (https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/food-and-drug-administration) on 02/20/2013 (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20)





EMAIL (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/email-a-friend/2013-03835)
TWITTER (http://twitter.com/home?status=https%3A%2F%2Ffederalregister.gov%2Fa% 2F2013-03835+%23gov20)
FACEBOOK (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ffederalregister.gov%2Fa %2F2013-03835&t=Flavored+Milk%3B+Petition+to+Amend+the+Standard+ of+Identity+for+Milk+and+17+Additional+Dairy+Produ cts)




Previous Article (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03767/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-pacific-cod-by-catcher-vessels-using-trawl-gear?utm_content=previous&utm_medium=PrevNext&utm_source=Article)Next Article (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03669/minimum-internal-control-standards?utm_content=next&utm_medium=PrevNext&utm_source=Article)
LEGAL DISCLAIMER (https://www.federalregister.gov/policy/legal-status)


Font Controls



Increase (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#)
Decrease (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#)
Sans (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#)
Serif (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#)



PDF (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-20/pdf/2013-03835.pdf) DEV (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#dev)PRINT (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#print_view)PUBLIC INSPECTION (https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-03835.pdf)
Publication Date:Wednesday, February 20, 2013 (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20)Agencies:Department of Health and Human Services (https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/health-and-human-services-department)Food and Drug Administration (https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/food-and-drug-administration)Dates:Submit either written or electronic comments by May 21, 2013.Comments Close:05/21/2013Entry Type:Proposed RuleAction:Notice; request for comments, data, and information.Document Citation:78 FR 11791Page:11791 -11793 (3 pages)CFR:21 CFR 131 (https://www.federalregister.gov/select-citation/2013/02/20/21-CFR-131)Agency/Docket Number:Docket No. FDA-2009-P-0147Document Number:2013-03835Shorter URL:https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-03835
Regulations.gov Docket Info

Docket NumberFDA-2009-P-0147 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;rpp=100;so=DESC;sb=docId;po=0;D=FDA-2009-P-0147)Docket NameTo Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk, 21 C.F.R. 131.110, to Includes Optional Characterizing Flavoring Ingredients With any Safe and Suitable SweetenerPublic Comments193 comments (http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;dct=PS;rpp=100;so=DESC;sb=docId;po =0;D=FDA-2009-P-0147)Supporting/Related MaterialsAttachment I Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools: Leading... (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2009-P-0147-0203)Attachment - Presentation to FDA: Petition to Amend Milk and... (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2009-P-0147-0011)Attachment H - "Memorandum of Understanding" -
ACTION


Notice; Request For Comments, Data, And Information.

SUMMARY


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.


TABLE OF CONTENTSBack to Top (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#table_of_contents)




DATES: (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#h-4)
ADDRESSES: (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#addresses)
Electronic Submissions (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#h-6)
Written Submissions (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#h-7)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#h-8)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#h-9)
I. IDFA and NMPF Petition (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#h-10)
II. Request for Comments (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#h-11)
III. References (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#h-12)
Footnotes (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#footnotes)


DATES:Back to Top (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#table_of_contents)


Submit either written or electronic comments by May 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES:Back to Top (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#table_of_contents)


You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2009-P-0147 by any of the following methods:

Electronic SubmissionsBack to Top (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#table_of_contents)


Submit electronic comments in the following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written SubmissionsBack to Top (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#table_of_contents)


Submit written submissions in the following ways:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper or CD-ROM submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/), including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/) and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Back to Top (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#table_of_contents)


Daniel Y. Reese, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Back to Top (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#table_of_contents)


I. IDFA and NMPF PetitionBack to Top (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#table_of_contents)


The IDFA and NMPF jointly submitted a citizen petition (Ref. 1) on March 16, 2009, requesting that FDA amend the standard of identity in part 131 (21 CFR part 131 (https://www.federalregister.gov/select-citation/2013/02/20/21-CFR-131)) for milk (§ 131.110). Specifically, the petition requests that FDA amend § 131.110(c)(2) to allow the use of “any safe and suitable” sweetener in optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk. [1] (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#footnote-1)The petition also requests that FDA similarly amend the standards of identity for 17 other milk and cream products. Those standards (hereinafter referred to as the “additional dairy standards”) are as follows: Acidified milk (§ 131.111), cultured milk (§ 131.112), sweetened condensed milk (§ 131.120), nonfat dry milk (§ 131.125), nonfat dry milk fortified with vitamins A and D (§ 131.127), evaporated milk (§ 131.130), dry cream (§ 131.149), heavy cream (§ 131.150), light cream (§ 131.155), light whipping cream (§ 131.157), sour cream (§ 131.160), acidified sour cream (§ 131.162), eggnog (§ 131.170), half-and-half (§ 131.180), yogurt (§ 131.200), lowfat yogurt (§ 131.203), and nonfat yogurt (§ 131.206). The petition asks that the standards of identity for these products be amended to provide for the use of any safe and suitable sweetener in the optional ingredients. [2] (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#footnote-2)
IDFA and NMPF request their proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity to allow optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk (e.g., chocolate flavoring added to milk) to be sweetened with any safe and suitable sweetener—including non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame. IDFA and NMPF state that the proposed amendments would promote more healthful eating practices and reduce childhood obesity by providing for lower-calorie flavored milk products. They state that lower-calorie flavored milk would particularly benefit school children who, according to IDFA and NMPF, are more inclined to drink flavored milk than unflavored milk at school. As further support for the petition, IDFA and NMPF state that the 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. Finally, IDFA and NMPF argue that the proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity would promote honesty and fair dealing in the marketplace and are therefore appropriate under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341 (http://api.fdsys.gov/link?collection=uscode&title=21&year=mostrecent&section=341&type=usc&link-type=html)).
The petition acknowledges that the use of non-nutritive sweeteners in optional characterizing flavoringingredients in milk is allowed under the existing regulatory scheme, with certain additional requirements. The regulatory framework governing the naming of standardized foods that do not fully comply with the relevant standards of identity changed with the passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 and FDA's rulemaking establishing the Agency's requirements for foods named by use of a nutrient content claim and a standardized term (§ 130.10 (21 CFR 130.10 (https://www.federalregister.gov/select-citation/2013/02/20/21-CFR-130.10))). Section 130.10(d) allows the addition of safe and suitable ingredients to a food named by use of a nutrient content claim and a standardized term when these ingredients are used to, among other things, add sweetness to ensure that the modified food is not inferior in performance characteristic to the standardized food even if such ingredients are not specifically provided for by the relevant food standard. 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. 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.”
As to the additional dairy standards, IDFA and NMPF state that administrative efficiency counsels in favor of similar changes. As long as FDA is dedicating resources to amending the standard of identity for milk, they argue, the Agency should also amend the standards for these products at the same time. They state that it is most efficient to consider all of the proposals together. According to the petition, the requested changes to the additional dairy standards present the same issues as the milk standard, and it is therefore appropriate to consider all of the requested changes together.

II. Request for CommentsBack to Top (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#table_of_contents)


FDA requests that interested persons submit comments, data, and information concerning the need for, and the appropriateness of, amending the standard of identity for milk and the additional dairy standards. FDA specifically requests comment and supporting data, as appropriate, on the following matters:
1. The petition states that amending the standard of identity for milk (§ 131.100) to allow the use of “any safe and suitable” sweetener in optional characterizing flavoring ingredients would promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers by creating consistency in the naming of flavored milk products because flavored milk could contain a non-nutritive sweetener without bearing a nutrient content claim (e.g., “reduced sugar”) as part of its name. Would the proposed amendments promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers?
2. If the standard of identity for milk is amended as requested by petitioners, milk manufacturers could use non-nutritive sweeteners in flavored milk without a nutrient content claim in its labeling. Will the inclusion of the non-nutritive sweeteners in the ingredient statement provide consumers with sufficient information to ensure that consumers are not misled regarding the characteristics of the milk they are purchasing?
3. The petition states that flavored milk labels that bear nutrient content claims such as “reduced calorie” are unattractive to children. What, if any, data are available on children's purchase habits with regard to flavored milks labeled as “reduced calorie flavored milk,” “no sugar added,” “less sugar,” etc?
4. The petition states that if FDA dedicates resources to amending the standard of identity for milk, for purposes of administrative efficiency the Agency should also amend the Additional Dairy Standards because the issues presented are the same with respect to the use of non-nutritive sweeteners. Would amending the Additional Dairy Standards as requested promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers? If the labels of these products do not bear nutrient content claims, would the inclusion of non-nutritive sweeteners in the ingredient statements provide consumers with sufficient information to distinguish between the two types of products (i.e., sweetened with nutritive versus non-nutritive sweeteners) so that consumers are not misled? [3] (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#footnote-3)
5. The petition notes that ice cream is permitted to contain either a nutritive or non-nutritive sweetener without the label bearing a nutrient content claim or otherwise distinguishing the two types of products from one another. Are the considerations underlying FDA amendments to the standard of identity for ice cream [4] (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#footnote-4)applicable to the requested amendments to the standard of identity for milk or the Additional Dairy Standards?
6. If the standard of identity for milk and the Additional Dairy Standards are amended in the manner requested by the petition, what will be the effect on search costs [5] (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#footnote-5)for consumers who would like to determine whether a product contains a nutritive or non-nutritive sweetener?
After reviewing the comments received, FDA will further evaluate the need for, and appropriateness of, the amendments requested by IDFA and NMPF and will decide what further actions are appropriate. For a copy of the petition filed by IDFA and NMPF please go to: http://www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/) and insert “Docket No. FDA-2009-P-0147” into the “Search” box.
(Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321 (http://api.fdsys.gov/link?collection=uscode&title=21&year=mostrecent&section=321&type=usc&link-type=html) [I]et seq.)


III. ReferencesBack to Top (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#table_of_contents)


FDA has placed the following references on display. To view the references, go to http://www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/) and insert the docket number(s), found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box. The references may also be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk Producers Federation, Citizen Petition, March 16, 2009.
2. “ Frozen Desserts: Removal of Standards of Identity for Ice Milk and Goat's Milk Ice Milk; Amendment of Standards of Identity for Ice Cream and Frozen Custard and Goat's Milk Ice Cream” (59 FR 47072, September 14, 1994).


Dated: February 14, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2013-03835 (https://www.federalregister.gov/a/2013-03835) Filed 2-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P

FOOTNOTESBack to Top (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#table_of_contents)


1. Section 131.110(c)(2) currently allows the use of “nutritive sweetener” in optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk.
Back to Context (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#citation-1)
2. The National Yogurt Association (NYA) submitted a citizen petition on February 18, 2000 (Docket No. FDA-2000-P-0126) that requested that FDA make similar changes to the standards of identity for yogurt and cultured milk. Among other requested changes, the NYA petition asked that FDA amend the standards of identity for yogurt and cultured milk to permit the use of all safe and suitable sweeteners, while also revoking the standards of identity for lowfat and nonfat yogurt. In 2009, FDA proposed to grant the petition in part, and to deny it in part. See“Milk and Cream Products and Yogurt Products; Proposal to Revoke the Standards for Lowfat and Nonfat Yogurt and to Amend the Standard for Yogurt” (74 FR 2443 (https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/74-FR-2443), January 15, 2009). Thus, FDA has already requested comments on issues that are similar to the issues IDFA and NMPF raise with respect to yogurt, lowfat yogurt, nonfat yogurt, and cultured milk, and is addressing those issues through the rulemaking initiated in response to NYA's petition. Therefore, FDA is not currently requesting comments on IDFA and NMPF's suggested amendments to the yogurt, lowfat yogurt, nonfat yogurt, and cultured milk standards.
Back to Context (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#citation-2)
3. Although FDA requests comments relevant to the IDFA and NMPF petition, FDA does not seek comments regarding the requested amendments to the standards of identity for yogurt, lowfat yogurt, nonfat yogurt, and cultured milk. FDA has already sought and collected comments regarding similar amendments to those standards in a proposed rulemaking. See 74 FR 2443 (https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/74-FR-2443).
Back to Context (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#citation-3)
4. FDA amended the standard of identity for ice cream to allow for “any safe and suitable sweetener” to be used in ice cream. See “Frozen Desserts: Removal of Standards of Identity for Ice Milk and Goat's Milk Ice Milk; Amendment of Standards of Identity for Ice Cream and Frozen Custard and Goat's Milk Ice Cream” (59 FR 47072, September 14, 1994) (Ref 2). Before FDA's amendment, the standard provided only for “nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners.”[FONT=inherit]Show citation box
Back to Context (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products#citation-4)
5. Search costs include the time and energy it would take an average consumer to read a label and determine whether the product contained the nutritive sweetener or the artificial sweetener.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products

David Guyatt
11-20-2013, 09:07 AM
Why stop with milk?

Why not change the contents of, say, a beef steak - then hide the changes - but simply sell it as a beef steak?

Or anything else, in fact. Call a product a recognisable name to hook the dumb public, but make it from something else altogether. The public don't need to know what exactly, as this would "confuse" them...

Obviously this is not lying.

Like f*ck it's not!

Magda Hassan
11-20-2013, 09:38 AM
I'd say don't give them ideas David but I bet they've already long thought of that.