Removal of chocolate milk from schools

Photo by Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

The New York Times recently ran an article that discusses arguments for and against the removal of flavored milk from schools.

With the amount of added sugar in the standard 8 fl oz serving of chocolate milk offered in schools, kids are getting more of a treat than a healthy beverage with their lunch on a daily basis. The added sweeteners in flavored milk can cause it to contain twice as much sugar as plain low-fat milk! Milk contains calcium, protein, and vitamin D, which support normal body functions such as locomotion and brain performance, and are essential for growing kids. However, cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are not. Milk is naturally sweet from lactose and does not require the added sugar that flavored milk contains.

High sugar consumption is a serious matter. In the long run, it can lead to weight gain and obesity and can disrupt absorption of required nutrients by the body, leading to numerous health effects. In the short term, high sugar consumption can lead to fatigue and migraines which can interrupt learning at school.

Currently, 71% of milk served in schools nationwide is flavored; the majority of it being chocolate. However, its unnecessarily high sugar content has lead some schools to remove it as an option in their cafeterias. This year, schools in Berkley, California are only serving plain milk and school officials in Florida are also considering the ban.

Milk consumption is falling though and is being replaced by sugary drinks such as soda. Recent studies show that on average, milk consumption in elementary schools decreases by 35% once flavored milk is removed from cafeterias. This, coupled with research confirming that nearly three-quarters of teenagers and adults are deficient in the essential nutrients contained in milk forces some to question if flavoring milk is necessary in order to get the kids to drink it and get those nutrients. Is it better for kids to drink milk with added sugar than to not drink milk at all?

Ann Cooper, who runs a national Web site, chefann.com, aimed at reforming school lunch, and advocates for feeding kids healthier food, puts it succinctly in the article when she says… “Saying we need to add sugar and flavoring to milk to get kids to drink it is like saying we need to feed kids apple pie if they don’t like apples.”

Chocolate milk in moderation is all right for kids, but we shouldn’t be teaching them that it is a healthy choice for their daily diet.

We should not make food unhealthy just to get kids to eat it. This seems to defeat the initial purpose of consuming the once healthy beverage. If kids do not like plain milk, there are other ways for them to get their calcium while avoiding unnecessary amounts of sugar. Green leafy vegetables or grains are great options that are even more calcium-rich than milk.

Let us know what you think… Is it better to drink milk with added sugar than no milk at all? Or are schools heading in the right direction by removing flavored milk?

Response to “Senate’s Important Lunch Date”

By: Greg Christian

After reading an article by Richard Lugar in the NYtimes “The Senate’s Important Lunch Date”, I had to comment.

Lugar talks about reauthorizing the federal child nutrition programs—and how important this is.

I have witnessed a similar consensus in Chicago, and I am in agreement, it is important!

However, what they are proposing is essentially a 6 cent increase in the amount spent on children’s lunch, and this is not sufficient funding.

The program would also be expanded to include more people in need,

but nowhere in the article does he take responsibility for the quality of food being served in the future.

He ensures, “This bill… is as close to a moment of consensus as can be achieved.”

But the lack of political will here is obvious—‘settling’ on our future generation’s food is something I struggle with supporting.

‘Baby steps’ is the common phrase in ‘moving a system’, but the process of improving school food needs much more than baby steps to make a difference in the health of our kids.

Read the New York Times article at

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/opinion/04lugar.html

What's going on in D.C.

The nation-wide effort to improve the quality of school lunch continues as one-third of the nation’s children remain overweight or obese. Public Schools in Washington, D.C., which have the ninth-highest rate of childhood obesity in the country, according to a June report by the Trust for America's Health, are making their own efforts in executing a better school food system. Two pilot programs have been established that intend to vastly improve meals, altering the diet of ultra-processed and sugary foods. Scheduled to start in fourteen Elementary Schools in the fall, the programs are designed to gauge what works best in terms of food quality and preparation. The best practices will then be applied the following year.

On Monday, the D.C. Public School System announced the two vendors they chose to supply these healthier meals. Revolution Foods will provide prepackaged meals to seven schools that do not have a student cafeteria, while DC Central Kitchen will supply meals made-from-scratch at seven schools in Northeast Washington. These vendors are required to meet strict nutritional standards recommended by the Institute of Medicine. Additionally, each meal must contain fruit, vegetables and hormone free milk. 75% of the edible products must be 75% or more whole-grain, and grass-fed, local and antibiotic-free meats must be served whenever possible.

The lack of fresh food products served in the cafeteria’s stood as a major driving force for the D.C School System. They realized the best approach to solving this problem was to change where they were getting their food from. While six vendors expressed interest in the programs, worth about $2 million annually, Anthony Tata, Chief Operating Officer for D.C. Public Schools, told the Washington Post that smaller vendors were selected over the national corporations because of their more extensive relationships with local farmers.

To learn more about the pilot programs and the vendors, read the August 3, 2010, article in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080204675.html?waporef=obinsite