The big health news from this past week is the petitioning of the FDA by two very powerful dairy organizations, The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), to allow aspartame and other artificial sweeteners to be added to milk and other dairy products without a label.
Aspartame, also known by the brand name Nutrasweet, is made up of three components: 50% phenylalanine (a chemical that affects human brain activity by transmitting impulses), 40% aspartic acid and 10% methanol (poisonous wood alcohol).
Based on the FDA’s track record in handling the aspartame issue, things are not looking good to stop approval of this outrageous measure.
For one, back in 1996 when aspartame was first approved for use in thousands of food products, the FDA used 15 “pivotal” studies as the basis for its decision.
One of these pivotal studies involved oral dosage of aspartame to infant Rhesus monkeys for 52 weeks. The research was conducted by the University of Wisconsin Medical Center in Madison, Wisconsin.
The monkeys were divided into three groups. A low dose group which received 1.0 g of aspartame/kg of body weight per day, a medium dose group receiving 3.0g/kg per day and a high dose group receiving 4-6 g/kg per day.
The high dose group ended up ingesting about the same amount as the medium dose group as the high dose monkeys would not consume intended levels of aspartame possibly because it was too sweet at that amount. There was no control group.
The monkeys in this study were served their aspartame in an orally consumed milk based formula.
Starting about 7 months (218 days) into the experiment, ALL the medium and high dose monkeys began having brain seizures.
“All animals in the medium and high dosage groups exhibited seizure activity. Seizures were observed for the first time following 218 days of treatment… The seizures were of the grand mal type… One monkey, m38, of the high dose group, died after 300 days of treatment. The cause of death was not determined…”
Grand mal seizures also known as tonic clonic seizures are horrific – a very dangerous seizure which affects the entire brain.
The low dose monkeys might have started to have seizures as well, but the death of one of the researchers, H. A. Waisman, caused a lack of staffing for the study. As a result, the low dose monkeys were withdrawn from the group at 200 days which is before the seizures in the medium and high dose group began occurring.
As soon as the aspartame was withdrawn from the monkey’s diets, the seizures stopped.
How the FDA could call a study “pivotal” for approving aspartame’s use in thousands of products where every single monkey suffered from grand mal seizures and one died while consuming milk based formula containing this artificial sweetener is incomprehensible.
According to Robert Cohen of Oradell, New Jersey, who rediscovered this study which was reported in 1972, the dairy formula/aspartame milk which the monkeys ingested would have been a key reason for the brain seizures.
Cohen, who holds a degree in brain chemistry, suggests that the ingestion of dairy has the effect of elevating the pH of the stomach. He contends that drinking a single 12 oz. glass of milk would have the effect of buffering the pH of the human stomach from 2 to 6.
When the stomach pH is 6, Cohen explains that the simple proteins that comprise aspartame would pass through undigested and hence move into the blood intact.
Testing of the monkeys in this study showed that there was in fact phenylalanine (which comprises 50% of aspartame) in their blood which proves that it is absorbed. Phenylalanine affects human brain activity by transmitting impulses and the brain seizures started occurring after this compound was detected in the monkey’s blood.
With aspartame, aka Nutrasweet, already used but still included on the label of many dairy products, it’s not a big leap for the FDA to take it to unlabeled status based on the petition from Big Dairy.
This is especially probable given the FDA’s backward interpretation of the Rhesus monkey study which it called “pivotal” in proving human safety and yet all the monkeys suffered from grand mal seizures while ingesting aspartame laced dairy formula.
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
Sources: Aspartame in Milk Without a Label? Big Dairy Petitions FDA for Approval
FDA Pivotal Safety Study: Aspartame Caused Brain Seizures
Wouldn’t this include organic milk products. As well?
What is their rationale for putting aspartame in milk?
This only concerns the LABELING on the front of products that ALREADY contain aspartame. They are not proposing adding it to plain milk or taking it off the ingredient list of products that contain it. Yes, the photo at the top of this post is blatantly misleading.
Tony – You evidently didn’t read the reply to your comment (above). What they actually are petitioning the FED for is to REDEFINE milk to include the aspartame, thereby making it unnecessary to label it. It would be in everything dairy.
What’s even more disconcerting than the involvement of the FDA is that the INTERNATIONAL Dairy Association is also involved. Would it then be impossible to buy uncontaminated milk anywhere in the world? I can’t imagine that the French would go along with this.
No, if you read the FDA website page about this, and then go and look at the rules and sections this proposed wording change would take place in, you would see that they are only asking that alternative non-caloric sweeteners be subject to the same labeling laws as high-fructose corn syrup, malt, invert sugar, cane sugar, honey and other caloric sweeteners. It would still be listed in the ingredient label, and any food containing aspartame would still be required to carry a prominent warning for PKU sufferers.
Labelling of aspartame in milk is one thing, but any demand for labelling of aspartame containing milk for PKU sufferers would be pointless. That is, because milk is already to be avoided anyway for PKU sufferers, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/phenylketonuria/DS00514/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs. That is because milk contains more phenylalanine and aspartate than does aspartame anyway, .
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
I live in France, Dianne. The normal milk here that consumers buy isn’t fresh milk,, but UHT milk: long shelf-life milk. It tastes vile the minute you open it up – an unnaturally sweet taste. I actually saw a Frenchman just back from living in California drink a glass of UHT milk, smile and say, “Back to great French milk”.
!!!!! Every year that passes more forget what great food is, although there is a notion to keep up standards. However, France is the largest user of pesticides in the European Community and 40% of produce tests over the safe limit. I know a farmer that won’t eat anything that’s not from his own garden. His colleagues routinely overspray so they’re assured to sell their crop when the time comes (looks better with less losses).
Wikipedia states:
“UHT milk has seen large success in much of Europe, where across the continent as a whole 7 out of 10 Europeans drink it regularly.[6] In fact, in a hot country such as Spain, UHT is preferred due to high costs of refrigerated transportation and “inefficient cool cabinets”.[7] Europe’s largest manufacturer, Parmalat, had $6 billion of sales in 1999.[6] UHT is less popular in Northern Europe and Scandinavia, particularly in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is also less popular in Greece, where fresh pasteurized milk is the most popular type of milk.”
The European Union just took another step backwards: “Banned for 10 years in fish feed, as a part of the ‘Feed Ban’, meals from monogastric animals (pig and poultry) will now be reintroduced into the diet of farmed fish.”
Also, estimation is 85% of animal feed in Europe is derived from GMOs:
http://www.anh-europe.org/news/europeans-consuming-gm-animal-feed-unknowingly
I wish it was different, but it’s a constant struggle to access untainted food over here. The organic stores in this area don’t sell raw milk, and I’ve never found raw milk in any of the national organic chains. But we can find raw butter and raw cheeses at the super markets, so that’s a relief!
@John Garst I have a variant of PKU, and I would still need the warning on milk. True, milk is a no-no on the PKU diet, and I had to stay away from it as a child, but now I no longer follow the diet. However, I stay away from aspartame like the plague as it is 50% of aspartame and is in isolation off the protein chain, rendering very dangerous for me, hence the required warning. The fact is there is MUCH more phenylalanine in aspartame than milk. In natural foods the concentration of phenylalanine is only 4-6%. HUGE difference. I NEED the warning on milk because i drink it, but aspartame would be very harmful harmful for me. Those are the facts. I find it disturbing that you think the warning, which is required by law is not needed. After all, ice cream, which is also off the classic PKU diet is also required to list the warning. Next time you’re in grocery store, check an ice cream carton for yourself. I hope the aspartame people ignore your comment because following through, which would be illegal, would be dangerous to me.
Write the FDA and let them know about your concerns. I did.
That is so scary. Please keep us updated on whether or not they get this passed!
During the days before I knew better I consumed many diet sodas and light yogurts. I had a benign irregular heart beat that was very exacerbated by the consumption of artificial sweeteners. When my husband said no more to me consuming artificial sweeteners the irregular heart beat went away, hmmmm…..
This is horrible news. I became quite ill after unwittingly chewing a piece of gum with aspartame in it. I’m very sensitive to it.
Sorry if this sounds naive, but WHY do they want to add it to milk?
Does it make the milk last longer? Drink more? What?
Kids apparently are drinking less milk. They figure if the milk is sweeter (think soft drinks) the kids will drink more — and they’ll sell more. *eyeroll*
Kids are drinking less milk because what Big Dairy produces is garbage and a skyrocketing number of kids are allergic to it! Thank goodness for quality raw grassfed milk! If it weren’t for that, my kids wouldn’t drink any milk at all and that would be a disaster for them.
Exactly – thank you, Sarah! Our son is allergic to dairy and now none of us in the household consume it. Perhaps one day we’ll establish a relationship with a farmer who will sell it raw.
Agreed. Both me and my girls are allergic and have not consumed “store milk” for years. In fact my youngest daughter has only consumed it a few times in her life and has the fewest allergies. Unfortunately, we do not tolerate raw dairy well either. It always makes me smile when other mothers say “but what do they drink?!” Um, water.
Eyeroll indeed! LOL
I remember years ago my young English nieces came over on a visit. Someone had a birthday and we bought two great looking cakes from the supermarket. One bite was enough. No amount of good looks could hid the gross-out chemical flavor – couldn’t be fooled on that!
This only changes the label on the FRONT of sweetened flavored milk products that ALREADY contain aspartame or other artificial sweeteners. Noone is proposing taking it off the ingredients list or adding aspartame to plain milk as the photo at the top of the post implies.
The link to the actual proposal is here:
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
no tony,the actual application to the FDA,that is now conveniently unavailable on google at the moment,specifically applied to add it to sourcream,half and half ,plain milk,plain yogurt,and wants to do so without identifying it on the label.
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
You might be surprised at what you’ll find artificial sweeteners in; ounce-for-ounce, chemical sweeteners are much sweeter than sugar. Big producers pay literally fractions of pennies per serving for chemical “sweeteners”. Americans have a sweet tooth – no question about it. If it tastes “sweet”, most Americans will love it; thus, you can take less than premium foods, add sweet taste, and it will sell! It’s all about the money, honey.
And, yes, artificial chemical sweeteners DO cause seizures. They are “false seizures”, but people watching you have them don’t know that. Keep sucking down chemical sweeteners and, sooner or later, you WILL experience: memory loss, muscle loss, ambulation problems, and, in time, “seizures”. You may very well be diagnosed with Alzheimers or Epilepsy, and put on medication for such a condition – when you don’t even have that condition. But, unless you can find an honest and very good Neurologist (I did!), they’ll never tell you it’s chemical sweeteners. Free from them for over 20 years, but, it ain’t easy! I can my own home-grown or local produce, and I know where all of my food comes from. I have to! I’ve been called things like, “food nazi”, but, oh, well….
Even if we are careful with the dairy we allow to come into our homes, think about the dairy (and all the GMO foods) ingested in Starbucks, Panera, any restaurant or ice creme shoppe n the US….even the “nice” ones. Ugh.
Good point. Hadn’t though about that. Even though of us who take great pains to avoid aspartame may be unwittingly ingest it if this no labeling thing makes it through.
Sarah, if you read the actual proposal, you’d find that it doesn’t suggest removing aspartame from the ingredient list. What they’re proposing is to eliminate the requirement that artificially-sweetened dairy products include a “nutrient content claim” on the label. That means they would no longer be required to mark aspartame-sweetened milk as “reduced calorie” or something like that; finding out whether it contains aspartame would still be as simple as turning the product around and reading the ingredient list.
The rationale for the change is that children are not attracted to products that include “nutrient content claims” (I assume since most children assume it won’t taste as good if it’s “healthy”) and therefore the “nutrient content claim” on the front works against getting children to choose the “low-calorie alternatives.” They argue further that some other products, such as ice cream, are already not required to bear a “nutrient content claim” when they contain aspartame.
I for one have never depended on the label alone to inform me if food contains artificial ingredients; the first thing I do is check the ingredients list, and I suspect most informed and conscientious parents do the same. While this still seems like a negative labeling change, it wouldn’t force anyone to “unwittingly ingest” aspartame, any more than the current rules on ice cream do, and I think it’s borderline irresponsible to imply that it does. Your readers would be well served by an update your post to make it clear what’s actually being proposed.
Well said Tony! There are numerous articles on the internet with this same misinterpretation. I still don’t agree with the petition as stated, however, it would be nice for people to be upset about the correct issue and comment on the FDA petition with that in mind.
Unfortunately, backward interpretation seems to be the order of the day when it comes to Big Dairy and our government. It is absolutely outrageous that citizens need not be notified as to what chemicals are going into the product that they will ingest, especially as we have become fiscally responsible for each other’s health care. The message is clear: The government knows what is better for you than you. This may soon become crystal clear in the state where we live. Currently, we can purchase raw cow’s milk from the farm. However, there is a movement underway by the Department of Agriculture, and the CDC to place restrictions on raw milk sales. From what I understand, they will recommend to the legislature that raw milk farmers 1.) Be willing to have their milk tested (our farmers already do that independently) 2.) Be willing to have facilities inspected for cleanliness (our farmer’s dairy is easily rated Grade A, you can eat off the floors) 3.) Provide a list to the required agencies of customers names and addresses (Hmm, big brother anyone? privacy rights, anyone?) 4.) And, last but not least, limit sales to 100 gallons of milk per MONTH. Our farmers have no problems with the first two, and would gladly comply, and I doubt the legislature would pass the requirements about personal information concerning customers, but the final requirement is nothing less than an attempt to put small business out of business. Shame on America, for saying one thing and so blatantly putting up with another in order to support Big Dairy and Big Government.
They have Big Government in Scandinavia, but the difference there is: they don’t let the corporations (Big Ag, Big Pharma) write the laws.
“The message is clear: The government knows what is better for you than you.”
I interpret the message differently: The goverment doesn’t give a crap about you OR you health. Profit is king in this country, that’s why our goverment is owned by corporations, and we all know they don’t care about anyone’s health…
Is the raw milk fast still planned to start tomorrow? Do you know if it’s possible to lose weight on the fast? I want to lose about 10 to 15 pounds.
The raw milk fast is not for losing weight. It is for mild cleansing. Yes, it will start tomorrow. I will put up a post about it tomorrow. We are not going to do 10 days this year as this is too long for Paula and I. We just want to do a mild seasonal cleanse so we are going to do 3 days.
Sarah, you owe it to your readers to correct this article, PLEASE. This is false information. Not that I agree with what the government wants to do, but THEY ARE NOT wanting to put aspartame in without putting it in the ingredient list. They DO WANT to put preferably non-nutritive sweeteners (such as aspartame) into sweetened milks (choco, etc) WITH IT ON the ingredient list, but NOT put “Reduced Calorie” on the front label. The proposal, tho, states they want to provide a “safe and suitable sweetener,” so our voices still need to be heard!
Read the proposal yourself 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
and add your comments here. http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FDA-2009-P-0147-0012
Hi led, I have read it myself. It is my interpretation that Big Dairy is indeed trying to change the definition of milk to include non nutritive sweeteners without labeling it. Ultimately, I think we are splitting hairs though. Aspartame and milk is a very damaging combination for the brain which is the focus of this article.
Thank you for being willing to post my comment. I agree whole-heartedly with your aspartame focus of this article, but you are misleading people to believe the aspartame will not be in the ingredient list and that they will have no idea where it might be lurking. You are also leading them to believe it will be in plain old milk, when the proposal states it is specifically for products containing “optional characterizing flavoring ingredients.” So it is not for all. People’s comments are not going to be taken seriously if a bunch of misinformed people start railing on them for something they did not state in the proposal. We need people submitting coherent comments properly aligned with the information in the proposal.
I’m not misleading anyone. Please read this Action Alert from the Weston A. Price Foundation that I just received this morning.
URGENT ACTON ALERT
Dairy industry petitions FDA to approve aspartame as a hidden, unlabeled additive in milk, yogurt, eggnog and cream.
The integrity of our food supply is poised for another blow with an FDA petition submitted by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF). These industry groups are asking the FDA to alter the definition of “milk” to include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose without listing these additives on the label.
While aimed principally at replacing sugar in flavored milks served to school children, the petition also asks for the right to put hidden artificial sweeteners in a host of dairy products including nonfat dried milk(always added to reduced-fat milks), yogurt, cream, half-and-half, sour cream, eggnog and whipping cream. Truly, no conventional dairy product will be safe if the petitioners get their way.
To read the petition, click here:
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
ACTIONS TO TAKE
Please file a comment at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FDA-2009-P-0147-0012
Even if your comment is very short, we need thousands of people letting the government know that granting this petition would be a disaster to our food supply, especially for children. It’s best to compose your comments before submitting them. Comments 2000 words or less can be copied and pasted into the comment box. Longer comments can be attached as a letter.
For the required field “Organization Name,” please enter “Citizen.”
For “Category,” you can use “Individual Consumer”
Remember to hit “submit comment” when you are done. You should be taken to another screen that includes a confirmation number for your comment, which is how you know your comment was successfully submitted.
The comment period ends on May 21, 2013
A petition from a consumer group, SumOfUs, has gathered almost 100,000 signers to oppose this move. To sign this petition, go to sumofus.org.
Please circulate this Action Alert to other email groups.
TALKING POINTS
Adding hidden artificial sweeteners to dairy products would hurt the dairy industry by further reducing the numbers of people who could safely consume dairy products.
Adding hidden artificial sweeteners to dairy products would generate severe consumer backlash to all conventional dairy products.
The FDA lists more than ninety documented symptoms of aspartame toxicity, including abdominal pain, anxiety attacks, brain cancer, breathing difficulties, chronic fatigue, depression, headaches, migraines, dizziness, marked personality changes, memory loss, panic attacks, rapid heartbeat, vision loss and weight gain
Aspartame releases methanol upon digestion, and methanol poisoning causes headaches, behavioral disturbances and inflammation of the nerves. Another breakdown product of aspartame is poisonous formaldehyde..
Thousands of adverse reactions to aspartame have been reported to the FDA, mostly concerned with abnormal brain function, brain tumors, epilepsy and Parkinson’s.
Children’s brains are four times more susceptible to damage from excitotoxins like aspartame than those of adults and react with ADD ADHD type symptoms, impaired learning, depression and nausea.
Sucralose side effects include rashes, panic attacks, dizziness, numbness, diarrhea, swelling, headaches, cramping and stomach pain.
People who are sensitive to aspartame can have life-threatening reactions to it.
The proposed regulations restrict our freedom of choice. Industry players who oppose consumers’ ability to choose raw milk are now trying to force consumers to consume artificial additives without their knowledge or consent.
A much more lucid presentation of the risks and problems of aspartame:
Erin – 2 years ago −
You told me to give a shout out, so I am. I have PKU, but no longer follow the diet. Actually, I have a variant of the disorder that is even more rare. Growing up I was only 1 of 2 known in the world with my type of PKU–the other was my brother. As a child, following the diet stunk– it was a pain, although kids with classic PKU had it much worse. Even though I don’t follow the diet in other ways now, I still avoid aspartame like the plague. Just so everyone knows, it is true that if you have undiagnosed PKU, you would be severely mentally retarded by now. I have two adult cousins who have minds of children due to ingesting too mush phenylalanine. Babies are tested for the disorder not long after birth because a strict needs to be followed…believe me, take it from someone who knows, if you have PKU, you know it!
Aspartame has the potential, though, to cause adverse effects in anyone because of the high amount of phenylalanine (50%). I’m sure the 40% asparctic acid, 10% methanol (wood alcohol) and the conversion into formaldehyde in the body doesn’t help either. The three substances are found in natural food we eat everyday, but they are in much lower concentratiions and/or are in compounds with other elements or substances that nullify any any negative effects. They are not meant to be ingested in isolation or in this combination.