
Permitting the use “any safe and suitable” sweeteners - including aspartame - in milk flavouring ingredients would help to stem the current milk consumption decline in US schools, the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) has claimed.
The IDFA comments follow the ascension of a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-filed citizen petition to the US Federal Register.
The petition in question - filed by the IDFA and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) in March 2009 - requested an amendment to the standard of identity for milk to allow optional characterising flavouring ingredients used in milk to be sweetened with “any safe and suitable sweetener.”
The IDFA and the NMPF also called on the FDA to modify the standard for 17 other dairy products including evaporated milk, whipping cream, yogurt and sour cream for at the same time for “administrative efficiency.”
The petition was published on the Federal Register wesbite earlier this week. The FDA has also issued a call for comments on the requested amendment.
Commenting on the ascension, the IDFA described the petition as a “direct attempt” to keep flavoured milk products in US schools.
Keep flavoured milk in schools
“The petition was and continues to be a direct attempt to keep flavoured milk in school cafeterias, as federal agencies and consumer groups continue to push for lower-calorie milk and foods on school menus to combat increases in childhood obesity,” said the IDFA.
“The current standard requires processors to use special labelling, such as ‘reduced-calorie chocolate milk’ for milk made with non-nutritive sweeteners. This phrase, according to market research, doesn’t appeal to children and has contributed to the overall decline in milk consumption in schools, the petition states.”
The proposed amendment to the standard would stem this downturn, the IDFA claimed.
“Allowing milk processors to use any ‘safe and suitable’ sweetener in flavoured milk and still label it ‘milk’ would help to stem the drop in consumption, while promoting healthy eating habits that will last a lifetime.”
Improve US school nutrition profile
As further support for their 2009 petition, the IDFA and the NMPF also claimed that the proposed amendment would help improve the nutrition and health profile of food served in US schools.
“IDFA and NMPF state that the proposed amendments would promote more healthful eating practices and reduce childhood obesity by providing for lower-calorie flavoured milk would particularly benefit school children who, according to IDFA and NMPF, are more inclined to drink flavoured milk that unflavoured milk at school,” said the Federal Register notice.
“Those initiatives include state-level programs designed to limit the quantity of sugar served to children during the school day,” said the FDA Federal Register notice.
According to the notice, the IDFA and NMPF also claim that the proposed amendment would “promote honesty and fairy dealing in the marketplace.”
The FDA has called for written and electronic comments by 21 May 2013. Click here to read the document or comment.




22 comments (Comments are now closed)
Not Farmer Supported
Farmers do not support this, just so you know. We have very little say in what the NMPF IDFA promote. They are run by a very few but VERY LARGE farm owners. The aspartame would be added to the flavoring itself, not the milk. There is currently NO additives to ANY regular milk in the store. No corn syrup, no sweetner, only milk plus the vitamins they add back in after processing. If there is any of this listed in the milk you're buying, you are buying a milk "drink" not plain milk. Organic milk will not have ANY additive, plus the cows will not be fed any feed with pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and will not be given rBst or antibiotics. Organic growers cannot have ANY antibiotics on the farm premises at all. If you are concerned about your milk, at the very least buy organic. Don't deny your family real nutrition.
Report abuse
Posted by Terri
25 April 2013 | 16h25
Promote honesty and "fairy" dealing in the marketplace?
As a teacher, I see the milk declining as students drink more water--and that is healthy. One of the reasons that milk consumption has declined is that students are becoming more and more suspicious of added ingredients in milk--like high fructose corn sugar, artificial flavors, growth hormone, antibiotics, etc. Now, teachers, parents, and kids are going to be really be suspicious of the dairy industry. Adding aspartame to the school food of children should be considered criminal.
I will never consume milk again because of this. First the corn refiners trying to sneak in "corn sugar" and now the dairy association telling us that consuming aspartame is healthy. The dairy association is going to be the death of milk consumption in this country--and thank goodness for that. Milk is for baby cows--and it used to be natural--but now it's anything but natural. That's why consumption is down--we don't want additives. I'm a teacher--and kids are becoming more and more conscious of additives in foods. They are even asking the science teachers about what "such and such" means on the labels.
Where have all the real foods gone?
Report abuse
Posted by Windy Daley of Texas
07 April 2013 | 03h25
What about...
What about people with PKU (Phenylketonuria)? If you don't label things, kids will die.
Report abuse
Posted by Rebecca
12 March 2013 | 20h36
Remove ALL sweeteners including
Sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup
Report abuse
Posted by Richard
01 March 2013 | 15h47
Allow Chocolate Milk in School
Please just allow chocolate milk to be sold in school. Just reduce the sugar content a little, kids won't notice.
Report abuse
Posted by jane margolis
27 February 2013 | 08h05
I and my family are alergic to fake sweetners!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Now we can't even drink chocolate milk??? what the heck is wrong with you people ??. Don't you even care about the children and adults you supply???.Obviosly you don't so my family and I will have to find another NON-dairy beverage!!!!. Also I will be informing everyone I know about this!!!!. trying to poison our familys , how dare you!!!.
Report abuse
Posted by Paul Przybysz
26 February 2013 | 17h46
"Value Added" Multinationals
Years ago I saw TV ads "A.D.M., Supermarket for the World" talking about "value added". I had no clue that meant taking products farmers produce and altering them in some way, for example the huge tubs of "fully hydrogenated" vegetable oil at the warehouse clubs, so they can brand the fairly unbrandable produce and charge a huge mark up.
This turns natural products into perverted, polluted and even synthetic products...including the faddy Xylitol and Stevia (controlled by Monsanto thanks to FDA).
You'll never win the argument about what is healthy or not healthy, or what is safe or not safe, with Multinationals who have interlocking Corporate directorships and revolving doors with Congress, FDA, USDA and other bureaucracies.
The best defense is disclosure of additives of any kind in food labeling laws.
They would much rather have the health & safety debate in the open, than a knock down, drag out fight over trying to hide additives.
Report abuse
Posted by Sour Milk
26 February 2013 | 17h03
How??
How does one make comments to the FDA by 21 May 2013
Report abuse
Posted by Sherri
26 February 2013 | 01h08
Sweeteners? NO!!
I don't want my children drinking sweeteners. If this passes children would certainly choose the flavored versions, but it is NOT healthier. Keep it to low-fat varieties they already offer. Children aren't drinking the milk, because they're not drinking it at home anymore!
Report abuse
Posted by Momma N
26 February 2013 | 00h46
Are they CRAZY???
sure, go ahead and give the school kids more poisons disguised as "nutritive foods". then wonder why they can't sit till or pay attention anymore, are obese, and sick. Wake up American parents!! aspartame is poison(remember saccharin?) the key words in this article are "help stem the drop in consumption", aka as the dairies bottom line! I will not let my child drink that milk and will protest it ever making it into our schools.
Report abuse
Posted by Kim #2
25 February 2013 | 22h46
Aspartame is a excitoxin ( dangerous not healthy )
this is the most horrible idea to push on children but I'm sure the addictive properties of aspartame appeals to
those who want to sell more product. I myself am a farmer and can't believe any farmer that really want to put a good healthful product into the world would want anything to do with this proposal
Report abuse
Posted by Thaddeus
25 February 2013 | 21h26
Enough, already.
Allowing the inclusion of chemical sweeteners (or sugar alcohols) will ease the decine in milk consumption and build good eating habits for a lifetime. (Paraphrased)
First of all, kids don't NEED milk. If they like it and don't have an allergy, fine, but there's no reason to sweeten it to encourage consumption. All you'll do is reinforce the idea that sweet foods are more palatable, which leads to WORSE nutritional choices over the course of a lifetime.
Why can't we just focus on teaching our kids about REAL food and that sweet isn't the answer for everything? This is a disaster in progress that will only increase the diabetes epidemic. When will we put HEALTH before MONEY? When the healthcare budget overtakes military spending?
Report abuse
Posted by Tom
25 February 2013 | 20h09
They want to poison the children now?
Aspartame and Nutrasweet are NOT healthy choices for anyone, let alone children. This has been proven over and over. This is just another move by big corporations to take control of what we eat and drink. Say no to this people, don't let the government and big business continue to poison your children.
Report abuse
Posted by Dave
25 February 2013 | 17h04
The FDA needs reforming
This is really sad. The FDA need reforming. Aspartame is poisonous as is many other "foods" the FDA considers safe. Many times when people chose healthier food choices like buying raw milk (a highly nutritious food) from a local farmer it is considered unsafe. It is obvious the FDA is making decisions for the monetary gain of a select few rather than what's truly healthy for the general public. The FDA should be in place to serve and help the general public rather than allowing foods that are harmful that will ultimately force people to seek out more medical help. The FDA is endangering many lives.
Report abuse
Posted by Sarah Moldenhuaer
25 February 2013 | 16h53
Better to leave Milk as is and take away sweetened options
Take away Juice boxes, Soft drinks and all the bad options instead of making a good product bad. Milk or water should be the drnk options
Report abuse
Posted by Jerry H
24 February 2013 | 16h59
Do you know what'd work?
Here's a thought. Take pop machines OUT of schools. Think that'd help?
Report abuse
Posted by john reiser
24 February 2013 | 08h35
aspartame 11% methanol -- long term harm in many recent human studies
Same amount of methanol, 60 mg, is given by smoke from a pack of cigarettes as a quart aspartame diet drink -- ADH1 enzyme makes it into free floating formaldehyde right inside cells in 19 specific human tissues, the Prof. WC Monte methanol formaldehyde toxicity paradigm -- just search for his detailed website WhileScienceSleeps to get free archive of 745 full text medical science references.
Report abuse
Posted by Rich Murray
24 February 2013 | 02h07
Stop the madness
Why don't you first look at what is in the best interest of human health and then look into what is best for the industry? Artificial sweeteners are not good for humans, period.
Report abuse
Posted by Kathy Rayburn
23 February 2013 | 21h05
Aspartame Clarification
A point of clarification, Aspartame toxicology has been studied quite extensively, the results of which can be accessed at sites like pubmed.gov (US National Library of Medicine).
Also Aspartame is made by combining two common Amino Acids: Aspartate and Phenylalanine. Amino Acids, like these two, are used by all living things to build protien. They are thus very natural and actually quite essential...
Report abuse
Posted by Richard
23 February 2013 | 00h23
Safe and Suitable
Apparently you missed these key points in the story:
1. Safe and Suitable
2. Promote honesty and fairness in the marketplace
3. Reduce childhood obesity
Report abuse
Posted by Susan
22 February 2013 | 22h22
aspartame, sucralose, AceK, Saccharin are neither safe or suitable.
The long term safety data for artificial sweeteners does support their use in foods or beverages for children or adults.
Other evidence clearly indicates that consumption of artificial sweeteners offers no health benefit and poses possible risk.
Report abuse
Posted by MA
22 February 2013 | 20h03
Aspartame vs. Xylitol AND Stevia?
They are kidding right? Aspartame? Nutrasweet?? and all the other poisons? Give these to our children? Really???What kind of sick demented minds to we have running the countries? CORRUPT!!!
Report abuse
Posted by Kim
22 February 2013 | 14h19
Read all comments (22)