The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) in partnership with the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) is currently requesting a modification of the standards for milk and other dairy products to allow the use of non-nutritive sweeteners from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), one of them being aspartame. The petition states that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweetener promotes public health by offering children and adolescents a beverage they are more likely to consume than plain milk. The petition is looking to amend the standard of identification for not only milk, but 18 other dairy products like sour cream, yogurt, sweetened condensed milk and more. Furthermore, the petition is pushing the FDA not to label the modifications made to the standards milk, arguing that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweetener/Aspartame should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can more easily identify its overall nutritional value. Big food corporations and political amendments usually never have the general populations best interest at hand. Here is an excerpt from the petition to the FDA from the IDFA and NMPF. This is how they attempt to justify not labeling this soon to be new phenomenon.
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. (1)(2)
I hope this petition doesn’t go through, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. Petitions and bills like this one usually get passed through the act of lobbying, which is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. The FDA, IDFA and NMPF are all working together, although the IDFA and NMPF are petitioning the FDA, they are all on the same side. For example, lets look at Jay Rockefeller, who is a United States Senator and Chairman of Commerce, Science and Transportation, among many more(3). He is responsible for the regulation of consumer products and services, which also includes testing for toxic substances. It’s no surprise that the IDFA has a direct link to Jay Rockefeller, who supports the IDFA and has been advocating for them with his political power(4). The Rockefeller family played a large role in the creation of the FDA. After all, it all goes back to Codex Alimentarius, which stems from the United Nations, which stem from the Rockefeller Family, among others(5). Why would a Rockefeller sit in a prominent representational position for the International Dairy Foods Association, help the IDFA while the IDFA petitions to the FDA, it’s almost as if a Rockefeller is petitioning to a Rockefeller, of course it will go through, or will it?
Did you know that Aspartame has been proven to cause brain damage by leaving traces of Methanol in the blood? It makes you wonder why Aspartame has been approved as “safe” and is found in thousands of food products. Currently more than 90 countries have given the artificial sweetener the “OK” to be used in foods.
Given that Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sugar, manufacturers are able to produce their sweet foods and market them as “low calorie” so they can market and appeal to millions of people on “diets.” There is no doubt that the less sugar you have in your diet, the better, but replacing sugar with aspartame is not the solution; in fact this is likely to be even worse for your health.
A study recently published in December of 2012 links the consumption of Aspartame to increased risk of Lymphoma and Leukemia. Conducted by the Channing Division of Network Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health and more, the study was a follow up after a 22 year period of data collection that includes frequent dietary and health check ups of the study group. The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:
– 42 percent higher leukemia risk in men and women (pooled analysis)
– 102 percent higher multiple myeloma risk (in men only)
– 31 percent higher non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk (in men only)
This is a powerful set of results as it leaves little to ponder about when it comes to the long time talked about risks of aspartame on our health. The results were based on multi-variable relative risk models, all in comparison to participants who drank no diet soda. It is important to note that it still remains unknown why only men drinking higher amounts of diet soda showed increased risk for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but the continuation of this study may reveal these results later.
Thanks for reading, I hope this inspires you to notice what you are eating, question it and do your own research. Much Love.
This free online 9-part docuseries is going to change everything you think you know about diabetes and obesity.
The medical community isn’t telling you the whole truth about diabetes.
Learn what you can do to lose weight and avoid or heal diabetes.