Chocolate milk and other flavored milk have added sugars, but I think the the article is referring to the naturally occurring sugars in regular white milk (lactose primarily), which has no added sugar.
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.)
>> 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.
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 blame you for being suspicious about added sugar. It's an interesting exercise to look at the ingredients of "peanut butter" while grocery shopping in the United States.
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.)