114
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 14 points 9 months ago

Curious was the data say on the topic. I can see flavored milk being more appealing than unflavored, and encouraging kids to drink it.

Obviously added sugar isn't great, but what is the net effect on health, in regards to the community as a whole?

What are the alternative drink choices? Fruit juice? Water? Just white milk?

[-] eochaid@lemmy.world 47 points 9 months ago

The USDA wanted to ban flavored milks from elementary schools and limit the amount of said milks within high schools as part of a wave of new nutrition standards.

I think this is the only data the congressman and his milk industry lobbyists cared about:

According to the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, removing flavored milk from schools resulted in a 62% to 63% reduction in milk consumption by kids in kindergarten through fifth grade, as well as a 50% reduction in sixth to eighth grades.

Basically, ban flavored milks and children will drink less milk, which means less money for big milk, which is why this is a thing.

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 19 points 9 months ago

And if there's less demand for milk, there's less demand for corn, which is the real big business.

[-] ares35@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

when i was in school, chocolate milk was only available one day a week (usually fridays). sensible meal planning by the schools to limit the extra sugar intake without 'needing' a law to do it. we didn't have vending machines either, i was out of k12 before that trend took off.

and yea, i can see a '50% reduction' in milk consumption--but only on those days. a lot of kids (including me) bought an extra carton or two (at 5 or 10 cents each back then) when chocolate milk was on the menu, because a little 8 ounce carton of chocolate milk is like a single swig.

[-] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 3 points 9 months ago

Well, of course his motivation is Big Milk, that was never in dispute.

Milk does have excellent nutritional value. A reduction in milk consumption is also a reduction in some vitamin and protein intake. It could be that increasing milk consumption is good for his constituents, and milk consumption is good for the students health. Both things can be true at the same time.

I'd like to see what the data is on flavored milk specifically. Kids need to drink SOMETHING, and I'm curious if the alternative is better in the long run than chocolate milk.

[-] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 18 points 9 months ago

Kids don't need milk. After infancy you do not require dairy and during it your best option is human milk.

Any food without added sugar will be healthier than those with.

[-] ripcord@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

What's a good alternate drink to offer kids (other than water)? You don't NEED milk of course, but the goal is to provide nutrition and something they will actually eat/drink.

[-] htrayl@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Why do you need to offer something besides water? Aside from which, there are plenty of alternatives. Herbal teas, seltzers, etc.

[-] ripcord@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago
[-] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Those elementary kids sure do love unsweetened herbal teas

[-] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Milk itself is fine. The post I replied to made it sound like we need kids drinking milk and we don't.

[-] ripcord@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

No, they asked the same question I did. What's the answer?

[-] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago
[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

If our schools were not captured by business interests, they ought to be doing things to actively discourage kids from drinking milk. Unfortunately, we still have so many adults that think milk is a health drink. But that's the idea of the captives held in schools.

[-] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

No, they would not discourage that as some kids need the calcium from milk because they do not eat green veggies enough.

Milk can be a healthy drink but it should not be your primary drink.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Milk and dairy in general are far too unhealthy for me to consider them something we should be pushing kids to drink. There are much better sources for things like calcium.

[-] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Source on better sources for calcium than dairy? Remember bioavailability of the calcium is going to be a more important factor than the amount of calcium present.

[-] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Why would milk be actively discouraged? Maybe for ethical reasons, but health wise what do you think is wrong with drinking milk?

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

A lot. Take a close look for yourself. No way we should be pushing that on kids - so they get a lifetime of chronic diseases that are brought about/made worse by things like milk. Unfortunately, there is a lot of active disinfo being carried out against adults and children in this country when it comes to nutrition. Drink milk for "health" and make sure to get as much "protein" (via unhealthy animal flesh) as possible, it will be good for you....

[-] ripcord@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Curious was the data say on the topic.

?

Ninja edit: oh - "[I'm] curious what the data says on the topic.". Right?

this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
114 points (90.7% liked)

politics

18074 readers
3152 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS