Undeclared Aspartame in milk, yogurt?

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) filed a petition with the FDA on 20 February 2013 to alter the definition of "milk" to secretly include chemical sweeteners like aspartame and chlorine-containing sucralose without them being listed on the label.

The full text of the Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products may be found in the Federal Register here. Scroll down to "Food and Drug Administration, Proposed Rules" for the PDF.

The petition requests that FDA similarly amend the standards of identity for 17 other milk and cream products. Those standards (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)
nonfat yogurt (§ 131.206)

According to Natural News: DFA 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."

This is all being done to "save the children," we're told, because the use of aspartame in milk products would reduce calories.

In other words, hiding aspartame from consumers by not including it on the label actually helps consumers, according to the IDFA and NMPF!

Yep, consumers are best served by keeping them ignorant. If this logic smacks of the same kind of twisted deception practiced by Monsanto, that's because it's identical: the less consumers know, the more they are helped, according to industry. And it's for the children, too, because children are also best served by keeping them poisoned with aspartame.

Consumers have always been kept in the dark about pink slime, meat glue, rBGH and GMOs in their food. And now, if the IDFA gets its way, you'll be able to drink hormone-contaminated milk from an antibiotics-inundated cow fed genetically modified crops and producing milk containing hidden aspartame. And you won't have the right to know about any of this!

The FDA confirms this "secret" status of aspartame, stating, "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."

The FDA is requesting public comments until May 25, 2013 on this dangerous proposed rule. Click here for instructions.

Speaking out of both sides of the mouth

The most important opportunity to affect the control the Corporate Agribusiness has over our foods is Proposition 37 on the California ballot in November. Prop. 37 is the Right to Know (what's in our food), mandating GMO labelling.

All Proposition 37 does is require clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified. We already have food labels showing nutrition, allergy information and other facts consumers want to know. This measure simply adds information telling us if food is produced using genetic engineering, which is when food is modified in a laboratory by adding DNA from other plants, animals, bacteria or viruses.    

I think the California vote on Prop. 37 is perhaps even more important that the Presidential vote. After all, no matter who is elected President, he will still have 535 Voting Members of Congress to deal with anything he wants to change or accomplish. However, if Prop. 37 passes, it will ultimately inform every one of us in the U.S. who purchases food because it will be too costly and cumbersome for corporations to have different food labels for foods sold in different states.

Most of us imagine that anything "organic" (by Law non-GMO) would automatically be on the side to defeat the proposition, yet many large corporations that produce or market organic foods have helped put over $26 MILLION into the war chest to defeat the initiative. How can these corporations market some foods as good for us, yet refuse to label what's in the other foods they market?

        Kellogg’s (Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms);
        General Mills (Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar);
        Dean Foods (Horizon, Silk, White Wave);
        Smucker’s (R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic);
        Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla);
        Safeway (‘O’ Organics);
        Kraft (Boca Burgers and Back to Nature);
        Con-Agra (Orville Redenbacher’s Organic, Hunt’s Organic, Lightlife); and
        PepsiCo (Naked Juice, Tostito’s Organic, Tropicana Organic).

On the other hand, there are many smaller organic leaders supporting the Proposition. By enlarging the poster above, you can see the companies donating to the cause. Please support them and their products when possible!  

The current Administration has deregulated more genetically modified foods than ever. From plums to alfalfa and even sugar beets. But it's not just that so many crops are modified (93% of all soy, 86% of corn, and 93% of canola seeds are now genetically modified) it's that there's currently no labeling system in place so that we know what we're buying. 

We are one of the few industrialized nations that doesn't require labeling of GMO foods. In the past year alone 19 U.S. states have attempted to pass GMO labeling laws, but each time Monsanto and biotech lobbyists have threatened to sue. Only Alaska, with its huge wild salmon industry, has passed a biotech seafood labeling law.

Most of us would like to believe that our foods come from nature, but that's far from the case. In 40 countries, including Australia, Japan and all European Union nations, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production of GMOs because they are not considered proven safe.

Update: Giant pesticide and big food companies have so far donated more than $37 million to defeat Yes on 37 to label GMOs in California. Earlier this spring, the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), of which Monsanto is a leading partner, declared that defeating Prop 37 was its single highest priority for 2012.

Monsanto just funneled another $2.9 million dollars to defeat California’s Prop 37 to label genetically engineered foods. This comes on top of their $4.2 million dollar pledge only weeks ago and brings Monsanto’s combined total to more than $7.1 million dollars!  That’s a huge pile of cash and it’s dedicated to only one thing – denying us the Right to Know what’s in our food.

My Question: Did Monsanto just kick in more $$ because they are concerned the People might actually WIN??

.

2012... and Beyond

NASA Goddard Photo

The year 2012 should be interesting.

Many folks have an underlying (or at least partial) belief running through their subconscious mind that Nostradamus' and the Mayan "end of the World" scenarios might happen. However, most of our overt behavior indicates total disbelief not only in Doomsday predictions, but also in accepting the critical food/water/health situation worldwide. (Isn't the media wonderful?) Our changing weather patterns continue to impose hardships on many of our lives and gardens, giving credence to possible violent environmental changes that could be coming to this lovely blue planet we occupy.

Personally, I do not believe the "end of the world" will happen in December 2012. However, the environmental, economical and political changes are not only continuing, but increasing... and it could get right nasty down the road.

There is another prediction out there, proclaimed by many, that the "changes" will usher in a "thousand-year era of Peace". IMO, there is much that needs to be significantly altered before real Peace can happen.

On our food and health aspects for change, it is time for us to increase our awareness and ethical/moral responsibility beyond what the for-profit television and advertising media tell us... because ultimately our health/future Is NOT Up to Someone Else.

GMO's have proliferated simply because we didn't raise any flags in the beginning. It is our own fault. For too many years we have allowed ourselves to believe that others ("medical professionals and government officials?") know best, or at least know what they are doing. We are bombarded hundreds of times a day by subtle advertising messages indicating "they" are more educated and/or informed than we are, so the vast majority have given up individual responsibility for our own health and well-fare. Our self-inflicted ignorance has let the government (and us) buy into corporate hype of all kinds (which interestingly also put money in many, many pockets). 

Thus the many corporate tribes and alphabet government agencies motivated by... (power? greed? or something else??) have given us obesity and disease by catering to and building on a human weakness for convenience, sugar and other junk foods. We have become a nation of addicts... and we are addicted to all kinds of substances. For far too many people [including children], it is sugary beverages and junk foods, while for others it might be an escape into alcohol or drugs. But as with any addiction, we never think with 100% clarity under the influence... and will do almost anything to keep getting our "fix" in spite of what our minds know. 

As a nation, we eat more so called "food" and gain less energy (nutrition) from it all the time. The working mother eating the SAD diet (Standard American Diet) has NO energy left to prepare real food meals when she comes home from work, even if she could buy real food anymore in most places. (She says she doesn't have "time" but in reality, she also doesn't have the "energy".) So instead of having enough energy to prepare a real food meal, she barely has the energy to pick up junk fast food on the way home, or frozen boxed junk food to nuke for dinner for the family. Eating this way, she never gains a storehouse of energy for the next day, and simply repeats the process over and over, becoming more frazzled every day from lack of good nutrition. 

Adele Davis always said a food without nutrients would not support life, and her example was a loaf of factory bread left on the counter (unwrapped) for weeks. It might dry out, but it would not support any bacterial life to decompose it. If it won't even support bacterial life, how could it support life for us?? Recently someone left a McD's cheeseburger on the counter for a whole year, and nothing grew there either. It sustained no bacterial life. (Source)

Change is never easy, but for the most part it can be started in small steps. Two years ago when I changed my food intake drastically to eliminate adulterated foods all at once (including foods with added sweeteners), I thought I would starve to death during the first 2-3 weeks. It took a long time for me to learn to think outside the box and change from what I had been accustomed to eating for years, to finding real foods to eat. Then as I started feeling the increased energy every day from eating real food (and probably eliminating some built-up toxins during that time), I began to understand what sugar and chemical-laden foods do to my body.

Unfortunately over the last year, I have slowly added some adulterated foods back to my diet, and I really see the poor consequences, both in my energy levels... and my weight. The good news is that I never deviated from my commitment to eating only grass-fed meats. I'm doing much better now in avoiding chemical-laden packaged foods (thus no GMO's) but where I am still struggling is to get sugars out of my diet again. The traditional and accepted flush of sweet goodies over the holidays put me right back into sugar addiction, and I really cannot totally blame the food industry... They only make the stuff; it's my hand that lifts the cookie to my mouth. 

Then there are the sweets in other foods... "research and development teams have done studies and conducted taste panels that have found sweet sells. The more we sell sweet stuff the more people come to expect it. Sweet is found in loads of savory items. Sweet tomato sauces, crackers, salad dressings, mustards, coated chicken products, sausages, and more. Many of our fresh products are enhanced with sugar also. Butterball turkey, pumped brined pork loins, stewing hens. Our palates are being distorted by sweet." (Source)
 

Some small but positive steps:

Make a commitment to one family meal every week or two that contains only real foods. Nothing from a chemical-laden package (cookie/cake mix, packaged salad dressings, sweetened yogurt, BBQ sauce, yada, yada), no GMO's. You probably cannot escape the GMO's in the meats from factory meat animals, including chickens and their eggs, unless you can afford pastured meats... but start somewhere. No fake butters, no canola or soy oils (both GMO's), no sugar substitutes, nothing fake. I know many of the regular readers of this blog eat real foods almost exclusively... but perhaps just as many readers do not.

Make the time for a friendly email or telephone call to your local congressional representative saying you'd like to see food labels that state GMO or not, and hopefully even whether routine animal antibiotics in healthy animals were used. Tell them politely that you'd like to know what's actually in your food.

It may take years of persistence, but remember the soil in our yards is the result of eons of weathering effects on rocks that turned them into soil.

The 99 Percent Declaration

I've been watching the growing "Occupy" movement for several weeks with some curiousity, even though there seemed to be no particular agenda. Now a Working Group that includes pro bono lawyers and university students arrested in NYC for their peaceful demonstrations, have drafted The 99% Declaration. 

I will be following this closely because among other things, it addresses the greed prevalent in corporations that affect the laws of this country via political contributions and influence, which means they affect me. (Think BigAg, BigPharma, etc.)

The Working Group wants to draws up a formal petition of grievances voted by to-be-elected representatives of all congressional districts. The US Constitution provides for a petition of a list of grievances to present to the government, but apparently by Constitutional Law only a duly elected body can legitimize a list of demands from the People. Their proposal is only a starting proposal and sample list of just demands on the government, plus how they hope to accomplish it via elected representatives.

Their posted sample proposal includes a fair tax across the board (and cutting ALL tax loopholes), eliminating the contributions (open or hidden) that buy politicians, and a host of other proposals that sound sensible to me, from the War Machine to Health Care and Jobs. 

I encourage you to read the whole declaration... it's short and to the point. Who knows, it may even gain wide-spread support!

Dairy Money in Congress

 Photo from AMagill's photostream

This information should have been included in yesterday's post about Dairy Companies playing dirty, except I didn't have it at the time.

According to MapLight.org, in the 2 year period ending last month, Milk and Dairy Producers have 'contributed' over $3 million to members of Congress. That link page has a list of special interest groups who want something from Congress, and are willing to pay for it with visible 'campaign contributions'. Who knows how many invisible contributions there are?

If you want to see how much money your congressperson has received from special interests, click here, and then click on the name. For example, the House Congressman for my district (one of the poorest districts in Virginia) is Frederick (Rick) Boucher. In the last 2 years he has received $1,764,764 in contributions... and on his tracking page at MapLight, the contributions are broken down by Top 10 Interests, Top 10 Organizations, by geography (90% of his contributions come from outside his district.), and by proximity to the actual Vote in Congress.

MapLight tracks all current legislation, who voted Yes or No, and how much money they received for that piece of legislation.

Another Comment on Banking

Several times I have bemoaned the huge bonuses paid to Big Bankers, and Wall Street.

However, I should make something quite clear: I am NOT opposed to profits in general, nor large bonus checks. What I AM opposed to is paying them out of taxpayer bailout money.

If a business cannot succeed on its own merit, products and methods, it needs to fold. Period. If a person can become the CEO and turn a company into a money-making venture on its own, then the CEO should be compensated as the company sees fit.

It is not the business of government to curb legitimate private enterprise from making money, nor it is the business of government to bail out money-losing private companies, and it is certainly not the business of government to do so with taxpayer money.

What government needs 42,000 paid lobbyists unless government can be bought?

How Smart is a "Smart Choice" Label?

There is a new industry-sponsored food label named "Smart Choices"... but some are not really smart choices, like Froot Loops, Cocoa Puffs, Frosted Flakes and Lucky Charms.

The problem is that although there are indeed many healthy foods elgible for the label, the industry-backed board members have good backing. The application process and high fees are less a barrier for the industry giants compared to the unadorned, unprocessed and unbranded foods like fruits and vegetables.

The American Dietetic Association and the American Diabetes Association have already walked away from the Smart Choices Initiative but food companies are maintaining their commitment to it.

In response to the program's questionable decisions, the FDA has announced their intention to study front-of-the-package labels and possibly develop its own, a process that could take years to complete.

Shell Game?

I awakened this morning wondering about my ability to understand English even though it is my native tongue and I am fairly well educated. I read, and/or listen to the news at least daily, and usually more than once a day. And I wonder what they are really saying... and not saying.

Remember the old shell game? We all knew it looked easy, and we all believed surely anyone and everyone could pay attention and figure it out to 'win'. No one ever did, except the 'shill' who was part of the set-up. The 'mark' got suckered every time.

I'm beginning to feel that way about the news, whether it's bank bailouts, automotive industry bailouts, pros and cons of health care reform, insurance and pharmacuetical government influence/manipulation/control, true figures on the unemployed, multi-million dollar bonuses, ponzi schemes, global warming, peak oil...

I'm sure there is a shell game going on, and even with the English I understand, I can't seem to figure it out.

Who is spending what?

Jill Richardson investigated and wrote about this information, which should make us all pause to consider just who is trying to shape government policy in their favor, and how much the biggest spenders were willing to bet on their horse winning.

Ms. Richardson pulled the report for the first quarter 2009 and found an astounding list of more than 20,000 -- corporations, individuals and groups -- who spent money trying to curry favor among the policy-makers in America. When she narrowed her parameters to just expenditures of over one million dollars, more than 100 came up (including AIG, who spent $1,250,000 on lobbying during that period).

The following totals are for just the first 3 months of 2009:

1) $42 Million: Health Care, Health Insurance, & Pharma

2) $31 Million: Oil

3) $20 Million: War

4) $17 Million: Telecoms

5) $15 Million: Financial

6) $10 Million: Automotive

7) $7 Million: Life Insurance

8) $6 Million: Biotech