7/30/2019 Suggested comments to the FDA on Unlabeled Aspartame in Milk

1/2

We should not allow unlabeled aspartame in milk.

The phrase safe and suitable is a misleading characterization of sweeteners, and aspartame in particular.

To begin, the dangers of aspartame must be briefly reviewed and understood. The information available from

independent (i.e., no vested interest in the profitability of aspartame) sources regarding the toxicity of aspartameraise the question of why it is even allowed into our food production systems. The FDAs approval of aspartame in

the early 1980s remains very controversial today among consumers and health professionals, and FDA officials

were on record at the time trying to resist its approval.

An extremely simplified description for Aspartame components finds:

Aspartic Acid (40%) kills neurons in the brain Phenylalanine (50%) is especially dangerous to infants, fetuses, and those with chronic illness, and its

consumption can lead to emotional disorders and other serious adverse side effects

Methanol (10%) is a deadly poisonWhy would any responsible, caring person consider hiding this toxic soup into our nations food supply when other

safe, natural sweeteners are available? A mandated warning label would be more appropriate.

Consumers have a right to know every additive to their foods, and this especially holds true for milk and milk

products which serve as the primary source of dietary calcium for every American.

The nature of sweeteners is particularly important to diabetics and people with severe allergies. Information is

critical to their health, and a lack of information could be life-threatening. Many Americans have developed

allergies to aspartame. Symptoms include headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, changes in vision, memory loss,

and seizures. There is even a link to brain cancer! As you surely know, toxins have much more harmful impacts on

children than on adults.

For some unknown reason, Aspartame has found its way into almost all kinds of foods in the US. In fact, health

food stores are virtually the only place you can find chewing gum without aspartame. There are millions of

enlightened consumers who do not want aspartame in their food at all, but it is getting harder and harder to find

food without it.

If aspartame is so wonderful, why does the food industry want to hide its inclusion in food products? If it is

something they are proud of, why not feature it prominently on the label instead of hide it?

Consumers have a right and a need to know what is in their food. All additives should always be listed on food

labels. There is no excuse to do otherwise.

This petition, if granted, would ensure that Americans could never again buy milk and be assured that it contains

only wholesome ingredients. You cannot let that happen. You have a responsibility to the American public, the

taxpayers who pay your salary and count on you to have rules and regulations to protect food safety. Do not allow

this petition to be granted.

7/30/2019 Suggested comments to the FDA on Unlabeled Aspartame in Milk

2/2

The following comments, data and information address the six (6)

specific questions posed by FDA in the proposed rule.

1. No, the proposed amendments would not promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest ofthe consumers. To suggest otherwise is laughable. Intentionally withholding and hidinginformation from consumers regarding the contents of the food they consume cannot be

considered honest under any circumstances. Consumers pay hard-earned money for the

products they buy, and in exchange they want and deserve information about the ingredients of

all food products, particularly a dietary staple such as milk. The average family of four consumes

about a gallon of milk a day, for a total of (365 days x estimated $3.95/gallon) about $1,442 per

year. That is a hefty investment in a product that would hide its ingredients, and would in no

way be considered fair for a family to have virtually no choice in a Russian Roulette purchase

of milk.

2. No, the inclusion of non-nutritive sweeteners in the ingredient statement wouldnot provideconsumers with sufficient information to ensure that consumers are not misled regarding the

characteristics of the milk they are purchasing. A total lack of information regarding a toxic

ingredient cannot be considered sufficient information.

3. A claim of reduced calorie is not unattractive to children. In other words, a claim of reducedcalorie will not cause a child to turn away from a product. This is an opinion based on many

years of feeding and observing children.

4. No, amending the Additional Dairy Standards as requested by IDFA and NMPFwould notpromote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. In fact, the proposed

amendments are incredibly dishonest and unfair in that consumers would be unable to know

about ingredients that may be particularly harmful to them. Consumers would not be able to

trust their suppliers of milk.

5. This is a complex and misleading question, and answers may easily be misconstrued. Ratherthan say yes or no, my comment is this: Ice cream should not have any unidentified ingredients,

particularly toxic ingredients such as aspartame.

6. Search costs for consumers who would like to determine whether a product contains a nutritiveor non-nutritive sweetener would drastically increase. Consumers would have to conduct

research for every brand and milk product on a continual basis since they would never be sure

that prior assurances and statements of contents still hold true. Of course, the information

needed will not likely be readily available from manufacturers if it is not required in labeling.

Thus, phone calls would be required and no doubt automated phone systems would not provide

the information needed. In other words, the search would not only be expensive (in time and

effort and money), but it would most likely prove fruitless.