There is about 12g of these natural sugars per serving and show up on the label as simply "sugars" in the USA. Some consumers are turned off by this. Because of that, there has been a fight in the USA to change labeling to be explicit about whether sugars in a product are added or naturally occurring. Companies have lined up on both sides of the fight. Milk companies, for example, would generally like this, but others are opposed. (One example of companies opposed are cranberry producers--they often add sugar to their products (e.g., Craisins, cranberry juice) to make cranberries more palatable.)
That's a reasonable explanation. I'm very confused by the CNN article's use of "sugary", which to me means "sweet" or "sweetened with sugar".
I don't think even in America they add sugar to it (I just chcked on walmart's website and none of their milk lists added sugar in the ingredients)
For the record, this is the other comment I refer to:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21522662
But there seems to be some disagreement about its accuracy.
Maybe its childhood nostalgia, but milk has never tasted as good again.
You still need to boil the milk for several minutes to kill all bacteria.
Presumably those cows are treated quite well too. I've been stuck in cow related traffic jams before and I've seen how well they're regarded, so I can only assume milk cows are taken very good care of. Injections seem like they would be off the table because they're both not free and inflict pain. That means there are probably calves involved. Any idea what happens to them?
Not so I'm afraid. Antibiotic use for ag use is exploding in the developing world and that includes India.
Call me a clueless European bumpkin but I was a bit shocked about that. Milk in the US has sugar added to it.
Another comment explains that it's particularly low-fat milk that has sugar added to it. But that's pointless. Supposedly one prefers low-fat milk because it's more healthy. What's the point of adding sugar and making it less ealthy again?