School Officials Propose Ban of Whole Milk

[TPO]

Our HMO (Kaiser Permanente), pediatrician, and dietitian advise switching children over age 2 to low-fat or even skim milk, and no more than 8 ounces of fruit juice per day, because they'd like to see children get most of their calories from -- presumably nutritious -- solid food rather than liquids. It's very easy for young kids to fill up on whole milk, then not have room to eat other foods.

I have heard this as well. Young kids have small stomachs, and milk and fruit juice fill them up without some of the benefits that solid foods have, such as fiber.

However, the average development span of a child is not much changed since then. And, when mother nature chose what went into milk, she did it in a very deliberate, informed manner. Milk is good food by design.

True, but last time I checked, mother nature developed breast milk for human children and cow's milk for calves. And I don't think either form of offspring was designed to drink it for a lifetime.

Many schools have offered only skim and low-fat milk for years, and although I wish whole milk wasn't considered such a bad thing, I can think of legitimate reasons for not offering whole milk. What I have trouble justifying is the baked Cheetos.

What is it that has changed so much?

Some great answers to this one already, but I would add fear to the list. When I was in school, if you lived within a mile of the school you walked and when you got home in the afternoon you took off on your bike or walked all over town. Today buses pick up kids a block away from school and very few kids play outside, and some of that comes from the fear of children being hurt or abducted.

Edited December 12, 2005 by TPO (log)

[Rebel Rose]

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.

On my lunch break I looked into it briefly. Apparently my figures are RDA instead of DV, and the figures seem to be wildly different. Sorry, I'll look into it tomorrow morning more carefully (over my coffee with 100% half-and-half cream).

and I agree with jsolomon, cutting milk and promoting cheetos shouldn't be the option.  more PE and may be even educating parents/guardians might be.

It really has to be viewed in the context of your entire diet, I believe.

There's something else about liquids that perhaps nutritionists should consider. Aren't liquids digested more readily and quickly? Sure, the calories are there, but healthy liquids are good for the digestive tract--they moisten the intestines, improve peristalsis, are good for the skin and hair, and flush toxins. Water is the best choice, as milk may cause mucus production and juice can give kids the sugar jitters, but still, any healthy beverage would be preferable to overconsumption of cheese-and-bread laden sandwiches, pastas, fried snacks, sodas, and fatty and nitrate laden meats.

My stepson inherited a solid bone structure, hyperactivity, and sugar sensitivities. He also turned to food for emotional comfort. And he bolts it--never chews. Even with after-school sports he was putting on a lot of weight by the age of ten. I changed his afterschool snacks from pasta/bread/meat to:

* small bowl of soup

* glass of milk

* 2-3 crackers

* 3-4 vegetable crunchie things

Instead of a cheese and paper-maiche intestine bomb after school and another meal at dinner he was consuming mostly liquids after school, which filled him up, calmed him down, and kept him from swallowing dinner whole. He LOST WEIGHT!

However, I had to knock heads to keep everyone on the program. During the last eighteen months no one has followed the program and he is no longer participating in sports. He now weighs, at thirteen, 50% more than I do at age . . . nevermind.

So I strongly agree that kids should not be educated to fear fat. Fat is satisfying. Fat content fills us up and keeps us from reaching for sodas and salt. Fat is good!

On the other hand, if you kick the kids outside and say "play"... you have few worries.  You can just about shoot food down them with a firehose--any food--and they'll thrive.

Amen.

[NWKate]

I am rather skewed on this topic having once worked at an Indian (Native American) school where the entire school recieved free meals as the majority of enrollees were low income. I am sure that the meals we provided gave these children the only nutrition some of them recieved and I would be loathe to take away their milk- full fat or not- given the nutrients it provided. To say that baked cheetos and 4% milk are nutritionally equal due to the similarity in amounts cholesterol and saturated fats is both ludicrous and dangerous. Until you can show me that baked cheetos provide the same protein, mineral, and vitamin content, I say stick with the milk!

Kate

[jsolomon]

True, but last time I checked, mother nature developed breast milk for human children and cow's milk for calves. And I don't think either form of offspring was designed to drink it for a lifetime.

←

Granted on the lifetime thought, but the people we are speaking of are not adults.

Also, what did mother nature develop cheetohs for?

and some of that comes from the fear of children being hurt or abducted.

←

Injuries, especially superficial ones are part of the development process. I hate to be the killjoy, but it's true. A little pain never did anyone harm.

As for abduction? I'll let others look up the statistics on numbers of children abducted per 100,000.

I never claimed that humans are rational creatures. I never will.

[Patrick S]

Our HMO (Kaiser Permanente), pediatrician, and dietitian advise switching children over age 2 to low-fat or even skim milk, and no more than 8 ounces of fruit juice per day, because they'd like to see children get most of their calories from -- presumably nutritious -- solid food rather than liquids. It's very easy for young kids to fill up on whole milk, then not have room to eat other foods.

←

[rant]Jsolomon:

What kind of dumb jack-ass prefers giving an 8-year-old a diet instead of telling them to go outside and play? Your physician and your HMO should be damned ashamed of themselves.

What kind of person immediately resorts to third-grade name-calling when a doctor advises a parent to switch their child to lower-fat milk and impose perfectly reasonable limits on fruit juice consumption? You may have a legitimate disagreement with this advice, and I'm sure SuzySushi would listen to your arguments. You're an intelligent person, and such ad hominems really are beneath you.

[Patrick S]

To say that baked cheetos and 4% milk are nutritionally equal due to the similarity in amounts cholesterol and saturated fats is both ludicrous and dangerous.

←

You're right. Baked Cheetos and whole milk are not at all equal with respect to cholesterol and saturated fat. A serving of whole milk has 5 times the saturated fat and >35 times the cholesterol of a serving of baked Cheetos.

[Patrick S]

Two other points.

First, I think that the best way to decide whether or not a school should serve any particular product is to ask the parents. It should be decided by the parents whose children are served by that school. After all, it is substantiallly those parent's tax dollars that fund the school, and it is those parents who should ultimately have control over their children's diets. It doesn't need to be, and shouldnt be, a federal rule or a state rule.

Second, I think its obviously true that lack of physical activity is the biggest factor behind rising obesity rates. There is debate about how many more calories the average person is consuming today as opposed to, say, 40 years ago. But there is complete agreement that kids today get only a fraction of the exercise that earlier generations got.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Patrick S (log)

[jsolomon]

You're an intelligent person, and such ad hominems really are beneath you.

←

Speaking as an intelligent person who is a member of our military, I disagree. Speaking as someone with 10 years of emergency medical experience, I disagree from the same angle. And, speaking as someone who learned to swear from an ordained minister, I find it linguistically satisfying at times.

Sometimes you simply have to call a spade a Goddamned shovel.

I would submit that letting the parents decide may be a compromise that then the school board could throw in the parents' faces and say, "but you told us to," but it is still a mistake. The parents in this case are, by and large, part of the problem. They follow fad diets. They don't get their kids out to exercise. They don't generally feed their kids a healthy balanced diet.

Here is my suggestion: hire a chef or produce manager from a reputable store to purchase fruit, instead of fruit juice, for the school. Make sure that this person has a mandate to get good-tasting, high-quality fruit. Also, this person should hold their suppliers feet to the fire about providing high-quality fruit for snacks at a reasonable price.

I'm not even talking about a full-time employment type of thing. Hell, some grocery stores might even donate the person's time for a tax write-off if the prospect was presented intelligently and respectfully. (I am recusing myself from that task because I simply refuse to be politically correct.)

And, I still stand behind my utter horror at what SuzySushi's pediatrician and HMO gave her as advice. I wish I could apologize for my words, but I can't. I still stand behind them.

[slkinsey]

Before this interesting discussion goes off the tracks, I would like to interject with a small moderator's note:

One goal of the eG Forums is to engender a free and lively exchange of thoughts and ideas relating to the subject of food. To this end, Society members are expected to comport themselves with all due civility when engaging in discussion and debate in the eG Forums. In particular, members are cautioned to address the substance of a counterpart's arguments in a debate, and never to make ad hominem arguments or personal attacks.

Furthermore, let us all be aware that the eG Forums are not self-policing. They are moderated, and the eGullet Society has a moderation staff to handle moderation. So, if you feel that someone has said something inappropriate, the correct and only course of action is to report that post to the moderation staff by clicking the button and filling out the form. Let us not see any more chiding of fellow members or speculation as to motivations in this thread.

Thanks, and carry on!

[Patrick S]

NOTE: This is a repost of my last post, which was deleted by the moderator, edited to remove the comments I made in response to jsolomon's defense of name-calling.

I would submit that letting the parents decide may be a compromise that then the school board could throw in the parents' faces and say, "but you told us to," but it is still a mistake.

←

Well, whether its a mistake or not, and I'm not convinced it would be, it is or least should be the parents' prerogative to make the decision.

The parents in this case are, by and large, part of the problem.  They follow fad diets.  They don't get their kids out to exercise.  They don't generally feed their kids a healthy balanced diet.

←

Exactly right. As I said on the other thread, I think parental behavior is the overwhelmingly dominant part of the obesity problem, and that parents are really the only ones in a position to solve it.

Here is my suggestion: hire a chef or produce manager from a reputable store to purchase fruit, instead of fruit juice, for the school.  Make sure that this person has a mandate to get good-tasting, high-quality fruit.  Also, this person should hold their suppliers feet to the fire about providing high-quality fruit for snacks at a reasonable price.

←

That sounds like a good idea to me.

And, I still stand behind my utter horror at what SuzySushi's pediatrician and HMO gave her as advice.

←

If you really reacted with "utter horror" at the dietary recommendations SuzySushi described--switching the kiddies to lower-fat milk and imposing reasonable limits on fruit juice consumption-- I can only surmise that your fear threshold is quite low, and that you spend a good bit of your life in state of terror.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Patrick S (log)

[jsolomon]

If you really reacted with "utter horror" at the dietary recommendations SuzySushi described--switching the kiddies to lower-fat milk and imposing reasonable limits on fruit juice consumption-- I can only surmise that your fear threshold is quite low, and that you spend a good bit of your life in state of terror.

←

The resistance to baked cheetohs has to start somewhere. If I've got to hurt a physician's feelings to get him to give better advice, then I will.

It's like complaining at a restaurant. If you feel you received substandard service, you state it.

If you feel that someone else got substandard service, then, well, you've seen what happens.

And, I've also stated that if they gave them lower fat milk and fruit instead of cheetohs, I'd be for that, too.

But, mostly, I'm for getting butts out of seats.

Honestly, my great hope is that someday, there will be a well-publicized social experiment where all of the classes in a whole school have a requirement to assist in some way with the food each week.

Perhaps kindergarteners would be weeding and tending the herbs going into the food, but by the time they are in high school, much of the food prep, and even planning, ought to come from the kids. And, why not? They'll need to feed themselves at some point in their lives. Why don't we teach that in conjunction with health class?

[Patrick S]

If you really reacted with "utter horror" at the dietary recommendations SuzySushi described--switching the kiddies to lower-fat milk and imposing reasonable limits on fruit juice consumption-- I can only surmise that your fear threshold is quite low, and that you spend a good bit of your life in state of terror.

←

The resistance to baked cheetohs has to start somewhere. If I've got to hurt a physician's feelings to get him to give better advice, then I will.

←

Generally speaking, merely calling someone a jackass doesn't prompt them to give better advice. I think you're more likely to get that response by demonstrating that the facts don't support the advice, and that some other advice is more appropriate.

But, mostly, I'm for getting butts out of seats. 

Honestly, my great hope is that someday, there will be a well-publicized social experiment where all of the classes in a whole school have a requirement to assist in some way with the food each week.

←

I hope so. But seeing what a challenge is seems to be just to get everyone reading, writing and arithmetizing, I'm a little pessimisstic. As far as getting the butts out of the seats, that can start right now, in every school, as far as I'm concerned.

[TPO]

First, I think that the best way to decide whether or not a school should serve any particular product is to ask the parents. It should be decided by the parents whose children are served by that school. After all, it is substantiallly those parent's tax dollars that fund the school, and it is those parents who should ultimately have control over their children's diets. It doesn't need to be, and shouldnt be, a federal rule or a state rule.

I'm not familiar with any school district that doesn't have to abide by state rules for school lunches. On one hand, I can see how leaving it up to individual districts would make sense, but I'm not sure how realistic it would be. And in many towns, the property taxes are paid by a lot of people who don't have children in the schools so I'm not sure how much it would have to be a vote from all taxpaying adults in a community.

Also, I don't see how parental diet control is removed by states regulating school lunch programs. Unless kids have their lunch boxes searched when they enter school in the morning and have whole milk confiscated, parents have the right to feed their kids whatever they want to feed them for lunch. (Although I suppose an argument can be made for the kids receiving free school lunches who don't have the resources to bring their own lunch from home.)

But, mostly, I'm for getting butts out of seats.

Me too, but the diets kids have as children often stay with them for a lifetime. So I can see feeding them everything as long as they exercise within reason. A diet filled with a lot of processed foods and junk food combined with lots of exercise might create a fully developed child, but that child might grow up to be like some people I know, who don't cook, are scared of organic foods, and wouldn't put a vegetable on their plates if their lives depended on it.

But a mix of a healthy diet with treats and lots of fresh air and movement would, IMO, greatly benefit kids. (Which I think is the along the lines of what you were saying.)

Edited December 13, 2005 by TPO (log)

[Daniel]

Would this whole milk ban include whole milk cheeses too? Cream cheeses? How about ice cream too?

[Patrick S]

First, I think that the best way to decide whether or not a school should serve any particular product is to ask the parents. It should be decided by the parents whose children are served by that school. After all, it is substantiallly those parent's tax dollars that fund the school, and it is those parents who should ultimately have control over their children's diets. It doesn't need to be, and shouldnt be, a federal rule or a state rule.

I'm not familiar with any school district that doesn't have to abide by state rules for school lunches.

←

Me neither. What I had in mind were local rules that are more restrictive than state guidelines, such as whether or not to offer whole milk with lunch.

On one hand, I can see how leaving it up to individual districts would make sense, but I'm not sure how realistic it would be.

←

I don't think it would be any more unrealistic than sending report cards home to be signed. Send questionaires home with children or call parents on the phone, tally the results, and take the appropriate action. An even better solution, though probably unrealistic, would be to allow parents to decide in advance what their kids can buy at school.

And in many towns, the property taxes are paid by a lot of people who don't have children in the schools so I'm not sure how much it would have to be a vote from all taxpaying adults in a community.

←

I didn't imply that all taxpayers in a community should have a vote in what sort of food rules local schools impose. I specified parents only. And I also realize that parents alone do not fund their children's school, which is why I wrote that "it is substantially those parent's tax dollars that fund the school."

[jsolomon]

I don't think it would be any more unrealistic than sending report cards home to be signed. Send questionaires home with children or call parents on the phone, tally the results, and take the appropriate action.

←

My school tried that one time. The survey ended up being revised three times (and sent out 4 times) before they got back the answers they wanted. I.e. the "you're doing fine" answers.

We had a big change-over in school-board members right after that.

[kalypso]

I'm not familiar with any school district that doesn't have to abide by state rules for school lunches. On one hand, I can see how leaving it up to individual districts would make sense, but I'm not sure how realistic it would be. And in many towns, the property taxes are paid by a lot of people who don't have children in the schools so I'm not sure how much it would have to be a vote from all taxpaying adults in a community.

Also, I don't see how parental diet control is removed by states regulating school lunch programs. Unless kids have their lunch boxes searched when they enter school in the morning and have whole milk confiscated, parents have the right to feed their kids whatever they want to feed them for lunch. (Although I suppose an argument can be made for the kids receiving free school lunches who don't have the resources to bring their own lunch from home.)

I've been following this thread with great interest because, I will confess, I am a former (reformed??) K-12 Director of Food Service (for San Francisco Unified among others). If there is interest I can post more details later about the rules and regs when I've got time. But for the moment, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) which is operated in approximately 93,000 school districts around the country is controlled by the USDA (a scary thought if ever there was one). The State has very little direct input into any food service operation other than to act as the centeral clearinghouse for compliance, commodity distribution and program review. The USDA rules and regs for the NSLP are extensive, cumbersome and extremely specific as to what can and can not be served.

With regard to the milk issue being discussed here, for ages there was a USDA requirement that whole milk be available at all meals. As the trend moved more and more towards the lower fat content milks, consumption of whole milk dropped to the point where it would spoil before it was taken with a meal. Not only is this a waste of good milk, and, usually limited storage space, it cost each program money. The USDA was asked to remove the requirment that whole milk be available all the time, but they declined. You see, the Dairy lobby in Washington D.C. is extremely powerful and U.S. dairy farmers are particularly adept at producing butter fat and the USDA has to keep those dairy farmers solvent by getting the butter fat off the market. It's also the reason that for years the USDA refused to allow yogurt to be recognized as a viable protein source for the NSLP. The fact of the matter is that the NSLP - and most government feeding programs for that matter - are BIG business to the USDA and the companies (and it's not all big agribusiness) that do business with the USDA. The end user, in this case kids, are, unfortunately, pretty far down the priority list.

With regard to the FMNV - Foods with Minimal Nutritive Value - the USDA has very specific rules in place that NSLP programs have to follow. Foremost among them is that sodas, and FMNVs have to be sold in an area different from the reimburseable school lunch. Which is why you usually see the reimburseable lunch on a steam table serving line inside a cafeteria and snacks being sold via snack windows outside the cafeteria. Federally funded school lunch programs are limited to the types and variety of snacks that they can serve, other campus organizations are not. The vast majority of vending machines selling sodas and junk food are not operated by school lunch programs but by ASB, ROTC, PTA, PTSA, Student Stores, the band, and other school related groups. The USDA and most States actually do have rules in place about when the vending machines can be open and used, but those rules are routinely violated with little consequence from the USDA or State enforcement agencies. The USDA NSLP is one of the most over regulated and under funded programs there is, which is a shame because it's the kids that loose in the end, not the government, not the farmers, not the food manufacturers.

I applaud the comments, outrage and questions everyone on this thread has raised. They're the type of grassroots movement that needs to grow and swell in order to facilitate action. As to the legislators in Illinois, though they may be somewhat misguided, they've managed, for better or worse, to put an issue into the spotlight that needs attention and needs action. I've been out of this segment of the industry for at least 5 years. After reading this thread yesterday I visited the web site for the California School Nutrition Association. On the site are a couple of links to current meal pattern requirements and initiatives. It only reconfirmed by decision to leave child nutrition, let's just say that the governmentese was only slightly less confusing than the IRS tax code.

I've said it before, you can not legislate good nutrition, especially if said legislation is not adequately supported by nutrition education.

[TPO]

And in many towns, the property taxes are paid by a lot of people who don't have children in the schools so I'm not sure how much it would have to be a vote from all taxpaying adults in a community.

←

I didn't imply that all taxpayers in a community should have a vote in what sort of food rules local schools impose. I specified parents only. And I also realize that parents alone do not fund their children's school, which is why I wrote that "it is substantially those parent's tax dollars that fund the school."

←

I'm still not sure I understand what you meant. What I was referring to were communities like where I live now. Everyone pays property taxes, but less than 20% of those homes have school-age children. In some states like Minnesota and Hawaii, the majority of school budgets come from state money, not local. So in some areas, the parents' tax dollars are a very small percentage of school funding.

I do think letting parents decide the school lunch program is a good idea in theory. But in practice, I think it could be tricky. Because if parents are allowed to determine the lunch program, should they also be able to determine the math program and the science program? After all, no district forces a child to buy lunch at the school, but most force them to take math and science.

However, I could see an elected school board possibly building on state guidelines to make a better lunch program.

I've said it before, you can not legislate good nutrition, especially if said legislation is not adequately supported by nutrition education.

←

Excellent point. As for the rest of your post, kind of scary.

[Patrick S]

And in many towns, the property taxes are paid by a lot of people who don't have children in the schools so I'm not sure how much it would have to be a vote from all taxpaying adults in a community.

←

I didn't imply that all taxpayers in a community should have a vote in what sort of food rules local schools impose. I specified parents only. And I also realize that parents alone do not fund their children's school, which is why I wrote that "it is substantially those parent's tax dollars that fund the school."

←

I'm still not sure I understand what you meant. What I was referring to were communities like where I live now. Everyone pays property taxes, but less than 20% of those homes have school-age children.

←

I used the word "substantially" because I don't really know what percentage of school funding comes from tax-payers with school-aged children, and because "substantial" is a weasel-word that, handily, I can claim means anything from 1%-99%. So let me change my view somewhat: parents should decide what products are sold to their kids in school, regardless of whether or not their tax dollars provide funding for that school. How that is actually accomplished in the real world, I don't know. Given what jsolomon said, its apparently easier said than done. But as a matter of principle, the more control parents have, the better.

kalypso, thanks so much for sharing your experience in this area.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Patrick S (log)

[SuzySushi]

(Sigh.) I didn't think anything I said was going to be so controversial -- just plain common sense. What's wrong with advising kids to drink lower fat milk and drink less fruit juice? (Eat the fruit, which has more vitamins and fiber, rather than a fiber-free liquid whose vitamin content has been depleted by pasteurization.)

BTW, even the new USDA Food Pyramid Guide for Kids (pdf file), which is headlined "Eat Right. Exercise. Have Fun." recommends -- and I quote --

Look at the carton or container to make sure your milk, yogurt, or cheese is lowfat or fat-free.

and

Go easy on juice and make sure it's 100%.

Are they jackasses too?

[therese]

With regard to the milk issue being discussed here, for ages there was a USDA requirement that whole milk be available at all meals.  As the trend moved more and more towards the lower fat content milks, consumption of whole milk dropped to the point where it would spoil before it was taken with a meal. Not only is this a waste of good milk, and, usually limited storage space, it cost each program money. The USDA was asked to remove the requirment that whole milk be available all the time, but they declined.  You see, the Dairy lobby in Washington D.C. is extremely powerful and U.S. dairy farmers are particularly adept at producing butter fat and the USDA has to keep those dairy farmers solvent by getting the butter fat off the market.  It's also the reason that for years the USDA refused to allow yogurt to be recognized as a viable protein source for the NSLP.  The fact of the matter is that the NSLP - and most government feeding programs for that matter - are BIG business to the USDA and the companies (and it's not all big agribusiness) that do business with the USDA.  The end user, in this case kids, are, unfortunately, pretty far down the priority list.

←

Sounds correct, at least to my unfortunately jaded ear.

[FabulousFoodBabe]

I have a sort of crazy notion: Why not treat milk as a food, not a beverage? I know it's liquid, but so is soup.

(I'm amazed at what can push people's buttons! Yowch!)

[NWKate]

To say that baked cheetos and 4% milk are nutritionally equal due to the similarity in amounts cholesterol and saturated fats is both ludicrous and dangerous.

←

You're right. Baked Cheetos and whole milk are not at all equal with respect to cholesterol and saturated fat. A serving of whole milk has 5 times the saturated fat and >35 times the cholesterol of a serving of baked Cheetos.

←

Just gotta love people who quote selectively! Now how about the rest of the quote- the part where I said that until you can show me that baked cheetos provide the same amount of nutrients, vitamins and minerals as whole milk, I vote to stay with the milk!

Kate

[Patrick S]

To say that baked cheetos and 4% milk are nutritionally equal due to the similarity in amounts cholesterol and saturated fats is both ludicrous and dangerous.

←

You're right. Baked Cheetos and whole milk are not at all equal with respect to cholesterol and saturated fat. A serving of whole milk has 5 times the saturated fat and >35 times the cholesterol of a serving of baked Cheetos.

←

Just gotta love people who quote selectively!

←

Quoting selectively is what you do when you wish to single out one particular part of a larger statement, like your factually erroneous implication that baked Cheetos and whole milk have similar "amounts cholesterol and saturated fats". You may not like having your errors singled out and corrected, but that's the risk we all take when we participate in these discussions.

Now how about the rest of the quote. . .

←

How about it?

[Daniel]

Honestly, I think this whole issue is a lot more then milk.. Its just another attack at the moral fabric of society.. Milk and Cookies are out.. Cheetos, Soda, and junk are in.. Are we now so P.C that we cant even make a comparison between Milk and Cheetos without someone asking you to respect the good things Cheetohs has contribute.. Its milk should be the response to anyone trying to ban it.. ITS MILK.... Get over it and lets move on to getting rid of Christmas..

Edited December 14, 2005 by Daniel (log)