• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will the FDA let dairy producers hide additives from consumers?

N

Neomalthusian

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
10,821
Reaction score
3,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
[h=1]Flavored Milk; Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products[/h]
Section 130.10(d) allows the addition of safe and suitable ingredients to a food named by use of a nutrient content claim and a standardized term when these ingredients are used to, among other things, add sweetness to ensure that the modified food is not inferior in performance characteristic to the standardized food even if such ingredients are not specifically provided for by the relevant food standard. Therefore, while the milk standard of identity in § 131.110 only provides for the use of “nutritive sweetener” in an optional characterizing flavor, milk may contain a characterizing flavor that is sweetened with a non-nutritive sweetener if the food's label bears a nutrient content claim (e.g., “reduced calorie”) and the non-nutritive sweetener is used to add sweetness to the product so that it is not inferior in its sweetness property compared to its standardized counterpart.

However, 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.”
Click to expand...
U.S. Dairy Industry Petitions FDA to Approve Aspartame as Hidden, Unlabeled Additive in Milk, Yogurt, Eggnog and Cream
 
Last edited:
Hm, upon further review, the organicconsumers.org article (which I think originates from NaturalNews) might have their facts wrong. This appears to be about removing only the "nutrient content claims" such as "Reduced Calorie!!" or "Less Sugar!" from the front labels, rather than omitting it from the ingredient list on the Nutrition Facts.

Nonetheless, if it were up to me, milk with aspartame would be called (on its front label) "Milk with Aspartame."
 
Neomalthusian said:
Hm, upon further review, the organicconsumers.org article (which I think originates from NaturalNews) might have their facts wrong. This appears to be about removing only the "nutrient content claims" such as "Reduced Calorie!!" or "Less Sugar!" from the front labels, rather than omitting it from the ingredient list on the Nutrition Facts.

Nonetheless, if it were up to me, milk with aspartame would be called (on its front label) "Milk with Aspartame."
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I think Aspartame is bad ju-ju! And, I can't help but smile to hear you say you want a new regulation! :cool:
 
Neomalthusian said:
Hm, upon further review, the organicconsumers.org article (which I think originates from NaturalNews) might have their facts wrong. This appears to be about removing only the "nutrient content claims" such as "Reduced Calorie!!" or "Less Sugar!" from the front labels, rather than omitting it from the ingredient list on the Nutrition Facts.

Nonetheless, if it were up to me, milk with aspartame would be called (on its front label) "Milk with Aspartame."
Click to expand...

It is more likely named Strawberry Milk, Chocolate Milk, or Ranch Flavored Milk aren't they? I just wish they would let people go back to selling unpasteurized milk.
 
Fisher said:
It is more likely named Strawberry Milk, Chocolate Milk, or Ranch Flavored Milk aren't they? I just wish they would let people go back to selling unpasteurized milk.
Click to expand...

I think they should let people go back to selling Radithor. The free market will sort it out.
 
Catawba said:
I agree with you. I think Aspartame is bad ju-ju! And, I can't help but smile to hear you say you want a new regulation! :cool:
Click to expand...

Are you implying I am an anarchy-libertarian? I've never suggested that.

There certainly should be ground rules of fairness and justice when it comes to contracts between individuals. I think of contracts in which one side is clearly (and perhaps intentionally) misled as fraudulent, and I don't think fraud should be legal. A lot of fraud should be up to the civil justice system to sort out, but rampant fraud may be impractical to sort out via the justice system and it may need basic regulations.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I think they should let people go back to selling Radithor. The free market will sort it out.
Click to expand...

Apparently the containers are still radioactive, so go to an antiques show and make your own. I suppose I could buy a cow, but I think I would have to get it licensed like a dog living in the city and all. I'd probably have to scoop behind it too when I walked it.
 
Deuce said:
I think they should let people go back to selling Radithor. The free market will sort it out.
Click to expand...

Good point!

I had not heard of Radithor and had to look it up, which I will share here for any others that may not have heard of it:

"Radithor (ca. 1928)
Prior to being emptied, the bottle pictured at left contained one-half ounce of Radithor, i.e., triple distilled water guaranteed to contain at least 1 microcurie each of Ra-226 and Ra-228. The manufacturer of the product, Bailey Radium Laboratories of East Orange, New Jersey, offered $1,000 to anyone who could prove the product contained less than the stated amount. No one ever did.

https://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/radith.htm
 
Everyone who wants more chemicals in your food-like products raise your hand.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Are you implying I am an anarchy-libertarian? I've never suggested that.
Click to expand...

All the libertarians I know say we need less regulation not more. Glad to hear you are not that kind of libertarian!
 
Catawba said:
All the libertarians I know say we need less regulation not more. Glad to hear you are not that kind of libertarian!
Click to expand...

"we need less regulation not more."

"we need more regulation not less."

These are a bit too vague to be able to assign to one political persuasion or another. Obviously libertarians tend toward less government involvement and liberals toward more, but it doesn't make for a rich discussion to simplify and categorize people this way.
 
Neomalthusian said:
"we need less regulation not more."

"we need more regulation not less."

These are a bit too vague to be able to assign to one political persuasion or another. Obviously libertarians tend toward less government involvement and liberals toward more, but it doesn't make for a rich discussion to simplify and categorize people this way.
Click to expand...


I just thought it was funny to hear a libertarian calling for additional labeling requirements.
 
Catawba said:
I just thought it was funny to hear a libertarian calling for additional labeling requirements.
Click to expand...

Well I'm glad you got a kick out of it. I don't see it as "pro-regulation" in general just to expect an item that's sold all over the country to have a label that indicates what it actually is or contains.

I have long had an ill-tempered opinion of the FDA. In some respects, I don't see it as necessary. It should be up to consumers (and really it still is) to demand the type of food products they want, and to voice that demand by their willingness or refusal to buy them. But it's clear that 1) most Americans don't give a **** and 2) the major food producers just want people to like the taste of the food, be attracted to its label, and not know or care what it really contains. That much is crystal clear.

This leads to food items that we can no longer assume are as natural as their contents or label might look, and so now the consumer has to go above and beyond to thoroughly investigate each item to make sure stuff isn't being snuck into the food that they don't want to ingest. Maybe that's the way it should be, but if we are to have an FDA, they might as well just tell food producers to be honest about what's in the food.

I think the FDA should grant them the petition and allow the companies to stop putting "Reduced Calorie!" or "Less Sugar!" (because that's a useless if not misleading distinction for the consumer) on the label and instead just tell them to include the ingredients on the front of the label. So milk with aspartame and artificial strawberry flavors should be clearly labeled "milk with aspartame and artificial strawberry flavors." I don't think we need to have a nanny state for the stuff big companies sell all over the country to simply and honestly indicate what it actually is/contains.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Well I'm glad you got a kick out of it. I don't see it as "pro-regulation" in general just to expect an item that's sold all over the country to have a label that indicates what it actually is or contains.

I have long had an ill-tempered opinion of the FDA. In some respects, I don't see it as necessary. It should be up to consumers (and really it still is) to demand the type of food products they want, and to voice that demand by their willingness or refusal to buy them. But it's clear that 1) most Americans don't give a **** and 2) the major food producers just want people to like the taste of the food, be attracted to its label, and not know or care what it really contains. That much is crystal clear.

This leads to food items that we can no longer assume are as natural as their contents or label might look, and so now the consumer has to go above and beyond to thoroughly investigate each item to make sure stuff isn't being snuck into the food that they don't want to ingest. Maybe that's the way it should be, but if we are to have an FDA, they might as well just tell food producers to be honest about what's in the food.

I think the FDA should grant them the petition and allow the companies to stop putting "Reduced Calorie!" or "Less Sugar!" (because that's a useless if not misleading distinction for the consumer) on the label and instead just tell them to include the ingredients on the front of the label. So milk with aspartame and artificial strawberry flavors should be clearly labeled "milk with aspartame and artificial strawberry flavors." I don't think we need to have a nanny state for the stuff big companies sell all over the country to simply and honestly indicate what it actually is/contains.
Click to expand...

:cool:.............
 
I buy raw milk and cheese from a local farmer because the stuff in stores is getting crappier and crappier with each passing year. Now they want to add something as toxic as aspartame to milk without having to declare it? I'll pass.
 
Neomalthusian said:
"we need less regulation not more."

"we need more regulation not less."

These are a bit too vague to be able to assign to one political persuasion or another. Obviously libertarians tend toward less government involvement and liberals toward more, but it doesn't make for a rich discussion to simplify and categorize people this way.
Click to expand...

Libertarian is not the opposite of liberal. It's the opposite of authoritarian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom