Note: no podcast this week. Podcasts may be in and out during the run of Season 2 of Jamie's show since school lunches will be a dominant topic.
You might recall that toward the end of Tuesday's episode, Jamie Oliver noted that "America deserves better." His quest to get rid of flavored milk in school lunch programs is in keeping with his motto.
Jamie Oliver rants against a lot of elements in the American school lunch program, but flavored milk is tops on his list. Oliver sincerely asks why children are offered chocolate and strawberry milk in schools, given the added sugars. Jamie often points out in his show that flavored milk has more sugar than a can of fizzy pop.
True, some of that sugar is milk sugar. And in attending seminars on school lunches at the Family Farmed Expo in Chicago, some school systems are working to reduce the sugar content of the flavored milk. Few are banning them entirely.
While I am not as aggressive on Facebook as I used to be, I couldn't help notice that this week, two of my Facebook friends (friends in real life, too) had posted two different op-eds [Link 1 and Link 2] on the benefits of chocolate milk in the school lunch programs (though I don't know the op-ed authors personally).
The theme in both op-eds were straightforward; schools should stock chocolate milk in schools because, otherwise, kids won't drink milk and they need to drink milk for calcium for growing bones.
I certainly applaud the idea of children getting calcium and growing strong bones. Win-win. The disagreement lies in how.
If children are never exposed to flavored milk, they will not know any better. However, even if kids aren't being served chocolate milk in schools, most children are certainly aware of flavored milk. And the authors and their supporters say if you take away chocolate milk, they won't drink the white milk.
At first, I would agree. If you are used to chocolate milk, you would have trouble adjusting to white milk. Adjusting from whole milk to 2% milk is a tough transition. The new product doesn't taste like you think "milk" should taste. And given how much sugar kids eat, sugar withdrawal from their milk has to be tough, especially as a child.
The two authors generally agree that children are getting 4 extra teaspoons of sugar per 8 oz. milk — sugars that aren't milk sugars. How would they feel about 4 teaspoons of sugar being added to spaghetti sauce so kids will eat tomatoes? Or 4 teaspoons added to bread for sandwiches? Do the ends always justify the means?
We are told that we have to serve kids lunches that approximate fast food; otherwise, they won't eat lunch. We are told that milk needs added sugars; otherwise, they won't drink milk. Why aren't we giving kids the benefit of the doubt that they might know more than we do about themselves and what they are capable of accomplishing?
Adults don't buy much chocolate milk at the store for themselves. They drink white milk, if they drink milk at all. Of course, they drink sugar-laden pseudo-coffees; some lessons aren't always learned.
Not that change will be easy, but if society is going to change the way we feed our children at school, then we should look at what is there and what we can change.
If these kids are eating breakfast at school, they get plenty of sugar from the food. Yes, kids need energy, but parents and schools complain about ADD and attention spans; perhaps there is a link. Schools that revamp their school lunch programs find kids pay more attention in class and are better behaved. Not saying there is a direct correlation, but something to ponder further.
Both authors note that there are bigger problems within the school lunch system than flavored milk. And on that point, we can all agree. But we also talk about the dangers of "liquid calories" in our diet. Teaching children to get calcium through cheese, butter, leafy greens, and yogurt shows them other ways to get calcium than through drinking milk.
School systems are set up for children to drink milk, and milk counts toward the minimum requirements to get a school lunch reimbursed by the federal government. So chocolate and strawberry milk increase those odds for pennies per day.
Changing children's palates is a daunting task in itself, much less doing so within the financial and restrictive nature of USDA guidelines. However, we should try to reduce the flavored milk in schools, but do so in a way that teaches kids about making smart food choices.
Have chocolate milk available on Fridays or special days. Treats are special, and if chocolate milk is available every day, then it's no longer a treat. Offer incentives to do white milk that might involve getting chocolate milk occasionally. Or get kids to pick healthier meals and 'reward' them with chocolate milk.
The goal of those who are in favor of flavored milk is getting kids to drink more milk. And those against flavored milk want kids to get the goodness of milk without the added sugars. There are plenty of compromises that can satisfy both sides.
At those school lunch seminars, some of those school systems were talking about eliminating high-fructose corn syrup from chocolate milk. If the people who wrote the op-eds would agree that those changes are good, then we have made progress. We all can agree that if we are serving chocolate and strawberry milk, they should be free of high-fructose corn syrup. And schools are also good at reducing fat in flavored milks.
The status quo isn't acceptable, but a total ban may not be practical. If nothing else, even if flavored milk is kept in schools, kids should learn something about making smarter choices in the school lunch line.
Comments