School Officials Propose Ban of Whole Milk

[Gifted Gourmet]

article

The Illinois State Board of Education proposed the rules after Gov. Rod Blagojevich asked for a junk food ban in elementary and middle schools.

The new rules focus on the nutritional content of foods rather than broad categories of food.

But this makes perfect sense, no?

[srhcb]

I don't think the politicians and beauracrats neccessarily have an objection to whole milk.

It's just that they're naturally attracted to any procurement, milk or otherwise, containing the word "skim".

SB (makes perfect sense that way, no?)

[Mallet]

They seem to be taking a pretty narrow view of nutrition...

[Megan Blocker]

They seem to be taking a pretty narrow view of nutrition...

←

My thoughts exactly...I applaud the idea of cutting out foods with a certain fat content, but what about the vitamin content of the foods that remain? How is that to be dealt with?

[Marmish]

Here's the complete rulemaking proposal, courtesy of the Illinois Associaton of School Boards: http://www.iasb.com/files/foodrules.pdf

[Gifted Gourmet]

My thinking is more along the lines of "what message do the kids get when milk is verboten and cheetoes are acceptable"?

Do kids really read the "fine print" or do they get a quick overview of the entire thing?

Just asking ...

[Corinna Dunne]

... total sugar exceeds 35% by weight...

This sounds pretty high. So a dairy drink with 0% fat and 35% sugar is considered healthy? As far as I know, the natural fats present in milk are actually good for growing children.

[TPO]

I don't think this is anything new; every school district in the past few places I have lived in offered only 2% and skim milk at school.

However, I do wish whole milk didn't have the bad reputation that it seems to have. And if kids had less Cheetos in their lives -- even if they're baked -- it wouldn't matter what the calorie content of their milk was.

[SuzySushi]

Some of the recommended cut-off points: calories from fat exceeding 35 percent (except nuts and seeds)

So I suppose they're not putting butter or margarine on bread, either...

[FabulousFoodBabe]

... total sugar exceeds 35% by weight...

This sounds pretty high. So a dairy drink with 0% fat and 35% sugar is considered healthy? As far as I know, the natural fats present in milk are actually good for growing children.

←

Yes! I thought the same thing when I read GG's topic title. And aren't those great vitamins, natural and fortified, fat-soluble? What happens to them when there's less fat to hold 'em up?

(Cheetos? On a school lunch program? Yeesh, when I was a kid it was easier to smoke than it was to get hold of a soda on school campus.)

Feeling old,

Fabby

[therese]

And aren't those great vitamins, natural and fortified, fat-soluble?  What happens to them when there's less fat to hold 'em up?

←

But calcium is water soluble, so skim and 2% milk contain more calcium than an equivalent volume of whole milk.

[LaurieA-B]

Those guidelines are very similar to what we have in the Seattle School District. I often see kids with bags of baked Lay's potato chips from the lunchroom. As far as the whole milk issue, giving kids only nonfat or 1% milk is a very standard recommendation in the U.S. Everything I read about children's nutrition now says to eliminate full-fat dairy products from your child's diet after the age of 2. (My daughter's almost 2, but we won't be doing that because a) she can use the fat and calories; b) we--the parents--have gotten too accustomed to enjoying the full-fat yogurt and milk ourselves.)

[Corinna Dunne]

Everything I read about children's nutrition now says to eliminate full-fat dairy products from your child's diet after the age of 2.

←

Is this good advice? Is it intended to help reduce calories or are there real nutritional issues at stake here? Low fat food products should be put under serious scrutiny for sugar content. I am convinced that the early onset of diabetes is related to these low fat sugar infested products in unnecessary packaging which parents give to their kids thinking they are doing something good. Transfats were meant to be wonderful... but hey... guess what, natural fats are now acclaimed to be much better. If governments are going to interfere, I think they should first take a look at the foods we ate before all of these problems arose. Yes, good basic food. And of course, exercise and personal responsibility need to be factored in to the whole equation.

[Patrick S]

Everything I read about children's nutrition now says to eliminate full-fat dairy products from your child's diet after the age of 2.

←

Is this good advice? Is it intended to help reduce calories or are there real nutritional issues at stake here? Low fat food products should be put under serious scrutiny for sugar content.

←

I agree that low-fat foods are not necessarily "healthy" if they are too calorie-rich (though a lot of people seemed to think so at one point!), but the issue here is milk specifically. And according to the first source I found, full-fat milk, 2%, 1%, and 0% milk all have the same per-serving content of sugar, protein, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and Calcium. According to this source, the only significant differences between the milks are total calories, fat calories, saturated fat, and cholesterol, with higher-fat milks having higher amounts of these.

Can anyone else confirm of refute that milks with different fat contents have very similar nutritional content, apart from fat, cholesterol and total calories?

[Patrick S]

My thinking is more along the lines of "what message do the kids get when milk is verboten and cheetoes are acceptable"?

←

Well, no one is proposing to actually ban milk at school, right? Just a particular variety.

Interestingly, a serving of Baked Cheetos has as much total fat and more calories as a serving of full-fat milk. BUT, it is much lower in saturated fat and cholesterol and sugars.

Baked Cheetos

Calories =200

Fat =8g

Sat Fat =1g

Cholesterol=0mg

Sugars =<1g

Full-fat Milk

Calories=150

Fat =8g

Sat Fat =5g

Cholesterol=35mg

[Rebel Rose]

Edited to delete inaccurate information. Sorry about that!

I'll look into it further if I have time, but more knowledgeable people have posted notes on values further along in the thread . . . .

I think they ought to offer a choice. I have always bought whole milk for my family--it's so satisfying that the young ones only want one glass and they're full. Given a choice between nasty, watered down 2% millk and soda, I'd choose a soda. Besides, calcium relaxes and calms kids. Take pity on the teachers!

[slkinsey]

Here's the thing I have never understood about drinking 2% milk: whole milk is only around 4%. So what's the big deal? You have to drink an awful lot of whole milk before becoming worried about the fat.

[Patrick S]

Here's the thing I have never understood about drinking 2% milk:  whole milk is only around 4%.

←

You're right, and that's why 2% milk should not be referred to as low-fat milk.

[therese]

Here's the thing I have never understood about drinking 2% milk:  whole milk is only around 4%.  So what's the big deal?  You have to drink an awful lot of whole milk before becoming worried about the fat.

←

It's not the fat per se, it's the fact that a cup of whole milk is nearly double the calories of a cup of skim milk. That's a lot of calories, particularly given that you're drinking them. Whole milk is a very efficient way to get calories into people that need them, like infants. Very few of the rest of us need to get so many calories so easily.

[therese]

Calcium.......30%.......................64%

←

I think the serving size here may not be the same---looks like you've got one cup of 2% milk and two cups of whole milk.

Calcium partitions into the water portion of milk, not the fat portion.

[edit to fix typo]

Edited December 12, 2005 by therese (log)

[ludja]

As sourced from the FitDay.com software:

Vitamins and Nutrients in 2% vs. whole milk:

....................2%.....................Whole

A................20%.......................42%

B-6..............8%........................17%

B-12...........37%.......................79%

C.................3%.........................7%

D................49%.......................98%

E..................1%.........................3%

Calcium.......30%.......................64%

Folate...........3%..........................6%

Copper..........2%.........................9%

Iron..............1%..........................3%

Magnesium....11%......................26%

Manganese.....0%.........................5%

Niacin.............1%.........................7%

Phosphorus....33%......................73%

Riboflavin........37%......................78%

Thiamin............9%.......................18%

Zinc................12%......................27%

I think they ought to offer a choice.  I have always bought whole milk for my family--it's so satisfying that the young ones only want one glass and they're full. Given a choice between nasty, watered down 2% millk and soda, I'd choose a soda.  Besides, calcium relaxes and calms kids.  Take pity on the teachers!

←

Thank you very much for posting this Rebel Rose. I had always heard that the nutritional profile wrt vitamins and minerals was very similar. Most species are reduced at least in half going from 4% to 2% fat. Now I'm wondering how much less of these vitamins and minerals are in in non-fat milk which I have been drinking recently!

edited to add: I just saw therese's post above; it will be good to get clarification on this... maybe I'll google a bit as well.

Edited December 12, 2005 by ludja (log)

[Patrick S]

As sourced from the FitDay.com software:

Vitamins and Nutrients in 2% vs. whole milk:

....................2%.....................Whole

A................20%.......................42%

B-6..............8%........................17%

B-12...........37%.......................79%

C.................3%.........................7%

D................49%.......................98%

E..................1%.........................3%

Calcium.......30%.......................64%

Folate...........3%..........................6%

Copper..........2%.........................9%

Iron..............1%..........................3%

Magnesium....11%......................26%

Manganese.....0%.........................5%

Niacin.............1%.........................7%

Phosphorus....33%......................73%

Riboflavin........37%......................78%

Thiamin............9%.......................18%

Zinc................12%......................27%

←

Thanks for posting that. I found the following values from the USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory. Values are in different units but the same units are used for each comparison. It appears from these USDA values that there is really little or no significant difference between skim and whole milk in terms of most nutrients, except for vitamin A. However, vitamin A is added to most skim milk and thus has as much as whole milk.

Whole vs Skim

A=102/7

B6=0.036/0.040

B12=0.44/0.38

C=0.0/1.0

D=40/not listed

E=0.06/0.04

Calcium=113/123

Folate=5/5

Coper=0.011/0.011

Iron=0.03/0.011

Magnesium=10/11

Manganese=0.003/0.002

Niacin=0.107/0.088

Riboflavin=0.183/0.140

Thiamin=0.044/0.036

Edited December 12, 2005 by Patrick S (log)

[jsolomon]

So, what happened to people following this article's suggestions of more milk?

And, shit, if the kids are fat, do more PE/recess and give them less homework, especially in grade school.

[therese]

So, what happened to people following this article's suggestions of more milk?

←

More milk is not the same as whole milk.

[jsolomon]

More milk is not the same as whole milk.

←

But, any milk is better than soda.

Exercise is better than being sedentary.

But, are the easy solutions always the right ones?