Nutrasweet in Milk–But Not On the Label?
This post may contain affiliate links from which I will earn a commission. Learn more in our disclosure.
Over the past week, there's been a real buzz in the whole foodie blog realm about the government's apparent push to add Nutrasweet (aspartame) to milk–with no labeling.
No label for Nutrasweet in milk? You've got to be kidding me.
How could the government add anything to milk without putting it on the label?
Does the Government Not Want to Label Nutrasweet in Milk?
After reading multiple articles on the topic, I headed over to leave a comment for the FDA regarding this proposed legislation, and I stated that it would be wrong to add Nutrasweet to milk without putting it on the label since some people have adverse reactions to it.
Then I started digging around the internet and found that many of the posts on the internet about this Nutrasweet and milk issue were actually incorrect.
I felt kind of like a fool.
If you read the comments on those posts, however, you'll see that I was not the only confused and frustrated soul out there.
So–if the FDA isn't saying that they want to put aspartame in milk without putting it in the ingredient list, what is the government really proposing?
Here's some of the wording in the FDA notice that shows that the FDA is NOT talking about not putting the non-nutritive sweeteners in the ingredient list:
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?
The government is proposing that, in the case of flavored dairy products (like Strawberry, Chocolate, and such), if the sweetener used is a non-nutritive one (like aspartame), then they want to be able to add it without writing “Reduced Calorie” on the label.
The government's reasoning:
1. The sweet taste will get more kids to drink milk.
2. Children are “put off” by labels such as “Reduced Calorie” and would likely pass up this kind of beverage/food in favor of sugar-laden items that can cause weight gain.
3. Flavored milks and dairy products with sugar and honey, etc., in them are not labeled in any special way, so why should things be different for these alternative sweeteners.
4. Children will be less likely to become obese by drinking flavored milks with low calorie sweeteners.
My thoughts
1. “Reduced Calorie” labeling has always helped consumers know that there is an artificial sweetener in a product, prompting consumers to read the ingredients.
2. This is confusing labeling and likely those with adverse reactions to Nutrasweet will unknowingly consume these foods and have problems. Nutrasweet gave me insomnia in my diet soda drinking days, so I am not a fan at all.
If you're going to sweeten milk or other dairy products, I say “put it up there– front and center”.
3. If you want to use a sweetener in milk, I think it would be better to use something more natural, like stevia.
And–the wording in the FDA notice could be a little better, but isn't that the case with many official documents?: “Flavored Milk; Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products“.
Now for my other concern.
I am frustrated with sensationalist health-related journalism that isn't backed up by facts.
If you have a blog where upwards of 79,000 folks are sharing your posts (in the case of Natural News), you need to be responsible and at least read the documents that you are making bold statements about.
I have nothing against “grab your attention” headlines (unless they are really over the top or really sexual in nature), but I do have a problem with shoddy journalism that leads to fear-mongering and wrong thinking.
Perhaps these bloggers were basing their information off on what they read elsewhere, but in each case, the original source really needed to be checked.
When you are sharing info with tons of followers (Natural News, at the time of this posting, has 10 million page views per month), you really need to be careful to get the facts right.
To be fair, maybe they are planning to correct the misinformation. I hope so. My life is busy and sometimes I can't get to things as soon as I would like. And I really do like so much of what Sarah has to say on her blog that I hope she'll come out and acknowledge this mistake.
Does that mean I never do anything wrong?
No.
But when I do, I do my best to go back and correct things. (Check out my posts on Natural Dishwasher Rinse Aid, and my series on Best Essential Oils where I needed to back away from brands I had been promoting.)
The lessons here?
Do your homework. Don't believe everything you read.
Read your labels.
Admit when you're wrong.
I think the labels should stay as they are to prevent consumer confusion. I hope you'll go and add your voice to the petition to leave things as they are, by clicking here. Comments will be taken through 5/21/13. I wasn't quite sure what to put in the “Organization's Name” space. I put my blog name. I think you could just write “none” if need be.
To be completely clear, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk Producers Federation petitioned the FDA to do this. But the FDA is proposing it by putting it out to the public for comments.
The way I read this is that all 3 of these associations / organizations are proposing this.
What do you think about removing “Reduced Calorie” Labeling?
Thank you Adrienne for doing the research and writing an informative post for the rest of us. I completely agree with many of the other commenters that our food and drink should be clearly labeled so consumers can make informed decisions in their OWN nutrition. There are many people out there with allergies and sensitivities to artificial sweeteners. The labels need to state that the product contains them if it does. We need change, and we need to voice this. Thank you for providing the link to comment. I have chosen to use my voice as a consumer even though we typically do not purchase these particular products. We are a raw milk family as well. We need to speak for those who do not have a voice, the children of our nation. They will/are the main focus of this, and we need to speak out for them. I personally do not believe in the use of chemical sweeteners and do not feel that this is a healthy diet for our children, or ourselves. Investing in proper education about nutrition, and encouraging physical activity would be much more beneficial when it comes to fighting obesity and creating awareness.
Good for you for researching the story before you promoted it!
The true story is annoying enough! If honest labels are discouraging kids from consuming a product, maybe we need to work on the kids’ understanding of what their bodies need, instead of on new ways to deceive them! If we get kids to drink more milk by adding artificial flavorings and sweeteners to milk, that’s not teaching them to drink milk; that’s teaching them to drink sweet colorful drinks. Not only is it unlikely to lead to their drinking plain, healthy milk in future, it’s likely to work AGAINST it.
I think flavored milks should be banned from school lunches. Kids should have a choice of plain milk or plain water. The milk served in schools is full of toxins and hormones, so the protein and calcium in it might be better obtained from food sources anyway. To my surprise, my son (now 8) has agreed with me on this since he first started attending a school that serves flavored milk: He thinks the colored milks are disgusting, and he’s noticed that the kids who drink them are hyper for a while after breakfast and lunch, then fall into a slump. Most of the kids who bring their lunches at his school bring water to drink. I’m so glad to hear that because when I was a kid, I would have been laughed out of the lunchroom for bringing water–lunchbox kids brought Koolaid or soda or juice or flavored milk; the school offered plain or chocolate milk, and only the kids who were allergic to chocolate or went to the church that didn’t allow chocolate would drink the plain milk, so I drank chocolate milk every day for years…but at least it had real cocoa powder and real sugar and nothing else except added vitamins.
I think you are right. We only drink water, or stevia-sweetened lemonade or coconut milk. That’s pretty much it! I wonder that the kids are able to do much of anything w/ all the junk they eat and drink. Very sad.
I had to stop reading Natural News for that very reason. I’ll pop over there once in awhile just to see what craziness they’re spouting. Mike should just rename the site “My Anti-Government, Libertarian Agenda” and be done with it.
I am very frustrated with out government and I consider myself to be “leaning libertarian” in a lot of ways, but I do not like unsubstantiated reporting and fear mongering just to get views or sales. That is a different story. Thanks for commenting!
Great post, Adrienne, thanks! 🙂
Thanks, as always, Lacey!
Seiously, Brain seizures.? Tell me, where the heck else can you have a seizure from. Your toe?
Don’t drink flavored milk, period. It is quite obvious it is full of sugars and dyes and is just plain unhealthy.
Too bad some states like the one I live in won’t allow the sale of raw milk for human consumption.
the thing they aren’t telling us the consumer is that they are not going to add aspartame specifically to milk. what they are doing is opening the door to add whatever they want in the future to milk like aspartame,NutraSweet,sugar,dirt,chalk or whatever without putting it on the label which in my opinion is even more dubious and evil.you really should understand your subject these kind of people who do this are the same kind who are ruining the government.and as for the natural news he does a great job and looks into things that others dont i think he is a hard working journalist who has few allies in the truth movement as for you please understand poking at others without really understanding things yourself shows your foolishness.
Manuel, did you read my post where I said that they are not talking about not putting ingredients on the ingredient list – they are talking about not putting “reduced calorie” on the front of the label. I am not keen on that but it is a different thing completely. Regarding Natural News, he does have some good info but this is the 5th time (that I have found) where he has published totally misleading content and doesn’t appear to be doing good journalistic work. And I am surprised to hear you say he has “few allies in the truth movement” when I see the number of shares on his posts and the number of page views he gets. That is about the furthest thing from the “truth”.
I did just a little bit of research and found the problems in many of his posts. Mike has a full staff. He should be able to do a better job than this.
Can you show me, please, where they are saying that they are not going to put Nutrasweet on the ingredient list? Again, I said I think this is a horrible idea, but the NN post has it completely wrong. Many commenters on his post see the problem with what he wrote as well. Thanks for commenting and I would love to hear back from you if you have more info.
Just yesterday on Dr. Oz there was a guest who said that artificial sweeteners still affect your insulin levels and that if you followed test subjects over a period of 8 years, one group consuming sugar, and the other artificial sweeteners, those on artificial sweeteners would have gained more weight. So, the claim that adding this to sweetened milks will help stop obesity is false.
I think that if they do this, there should be a huge nutrasweet logo on the milk jug. I don’t buy milk as we can’t have dairy, but I dislike when anything is labeled covertly. A few times I’ve gotten what I tout was natural flavored carbonated waters only to find in that first sip the flavor of artificial sweeteners. But there was little on the bottle to give any indication that it was in there except in the ingredients list. I’d like to know when “no added sugar” became code for “added artificial sweeteners.” So frustrating.
I have heard that as well about gaining weight. It’s confusing. I think this stuff needs to be “front and center”. Plain and simple.
I see the bigger issue as this is the first step to removing specific information from the labels. First they start adding poisonous aspartame to the milk and put it on the ingredient list. Then after the public gets used to it they will want to change the label to ‘sweeteners’ just like they have with ‘artificial flavoring’ . I want to try to prevent this as I am allergic to artificial sweeteners of all kinds and want to be able to make an informed decision when I purchase a product.
I think it is a rotten deal as well. Go add your comment to the petition and make sure you mention your allergies and medical concerns. That should get their attention. And spread it around.
Good job getting to the facts Adrienne! Thank you for that. And otherwise – very well said!
Thank you so much!
My personal thoughts? I like the every ingredient idea – don’t couch anything under “natural flavors”, “artificial flavors”, “additives” or “preservatives”, etc. Be honest. If you can’t tell me exactly what it is, I don’t think I want it in my body, ya know? The days of “secret recipes” and “secret formulas” are gone due to food allergies and sensitivities in my book, and just because you list the ingredients, doesn’t mean someone is going to figure out your exact blend, if you know what I mean. I also think our ideas of “healthy” are so messed up, same with “natural” and even “organic” doesn’t mean what it did. I think, list what’s in the product honestly and fully and let the consumer decide. {end rant}
Agreed. Feel free to rant anytime :).