
Milk, Science, and School Lunches: A Battle Over What Kids Eat
Children face a deeper problem: a school food system shaped less by health than by cost, convenience, and supply chains. While Congress argues over fat percentages, cafeterias remain dominated by processed, prepackaged meals that meet regulations but fail to meet nutritional ideals.
Meanwhile, kids are having their taste buds educated by cheap, easy processed foods that are hard to resist, even as rates of chronic diseases once reserved for the elderly balloon among children.
The milk debate might be overblown, but it reveals the fault lines in a nutritional battleground that may finally be making some progress in the right direction.
And that's important.
Nearly one in five American children is obese. More than 40 percent live with at least one chronic illness. An estimated 20 million could be diagnosed with a mental health disorder. The health of our children and our nation's future is in crisis.
When Milk Policy Reveals a Bigger Problem
The 'Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act,' led by Sens. Roger Marshall of Kansas and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, would
Related Stories
3/2/2025
11/13/2024
'Whole milk is one of the most nutritious drinks known to mankind,' Marshall, a physician and former dairy farmer, told The Epoch Times.
On paper, the change may seem marginal. Whole milk contains about 3.25 percent milk fat, compared to the zero to 1 percent in current school-approved options. But under federal meal standards, that margin has been enough to keep it off lunch trays.
The original restrictions were rooted in decades-old dietary guidance focused on lowering saturated fat. Though slightly relaxed in 2017 to allow some flavored 1 percent milk, the core ban on whole and 2 percent milk stayed in place.
The ban reflected a larger dietary fissure that saw food makers limit fat while increasing added sugars. While fat reduction goals were reached, Americans and their children became fatter. This dynamic played out viscerally in America's schools.
The Chocolate Milk Exception
Few foods illustrate the contradictions in school nutrition policy more than chocolate milk. Whole and 2 percent milk were banned for fat content, yet sugary skim and low-fat chocolate milk remain widely available.
Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford and former member of the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, said that dynamic was 'really backwards.'
'I would be in support of banning any kind of chocolate milk, and allowing whole milk to be added back,' he told The Epoch Times in an email, though he had other reservations.
To Marshall, the logic defies common sense. 'It's hypocrisy,' he said. 'It's not well thought through.'
A 2021
In 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
For many students, the choice between sweetened milk and watery skim or 1 percent wasn't much of a choice at all. For those who can't—or don't—consume dairy, there often isn't any option at all. Schools currently require a doctor's note to offer reimbursable plant-based milks like soy or oat.
Proposed
Offering choices resonates with school nutrition director Krista Byler, who remembered the fallout when whole milk was first removed from her district's menus in 2012.
'Milk was leaking all over the place. We had to give students buckets to pour out what they weren't drinking,' she told The Epoch Times. 'When I saw it for the first time, I felt sick. And this was happening while dairy farms all around us were shutting down.'
Later, when her district was allowed to pilot whole and 2 percent milk again, she saw the change firsthand: milk consumption rose by 50 percent, and waste dropped by 95 percent. 'That's what happens when kids are given choices they actually want,' she said.
Her experience echoes a national pattern. A 2021
A Nutrition Debate or Distraction?
The chocolate milk paradox reflects a broader nutrition debate that began in the 1970s and 80s, when fat was vilified and manufacturers compensated by adding sugar to processed foods to make them more appealing. Fat went down, sugar went up, and Americans stayed in caloric overload, even as ultra-processed, ready-to-eat foods became the norm.
That legacy lingers. The debate over milk reflects how slowly nutrition policy adjusts to new science, and how easily it fixates on single ingredients or items over broader dietary patterns.
For decades, federal guidelines pushed low-fat milk to reduce saturated fat and protect heart health. However, newer
'The body of credible nutrition science has evolved and no longer supports a policy of allowing only fat-free and low-fat milk in schools,' Keith Ayoob, a pediatric nutrition specialist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine,
He and others point to the 'dairy matrix'—the natural structure of proteins and fats in milk and yogurt—as a reason dairy fat may behave differently in the body than other sources of saturated fat.
Not everyone agrees that the evidence is strong enough to change course. The
'Allowing whole milk in school meals would be inconsistent with science-based standards,' the AHA told The Epoch Times in an email, 'and would undermine the progress made in improving the nutritional quality of school meals.'
Gardner takes a middle ground. 'Dairy is one of the main contributors to saturated fat,' he said. 'But actually, whole milk is not a major contributor.' If the choice is between sugary flavored milk or whole milk, he'd choose the latter.
He points to other dairy-based foods as larger contributors to saturated fat in children's diets. 'At the same time, I'd like to see the amount of cheese in school limited—especially in pizza and burritos—and the amount of ice cream limited,' Gardner said. Ice cream isn't part of reimbursable meals but is often sold à la carte, he noted.
Is Milk the Right Nutritional Anchor?
Milk has long been a staple in school nutrition, offering protein, calcium, and other key nutrients in a single serving. That nutritional density helped cement its status on the tray.
It's also filling. 'The protein content helps produce some satiety,' Corkins said. 'That helps prevent overeating.'
However, the idea that milk is essential to every child's diet is beginning to fade. 'For many years, milk was considered a basic ingredient,' said Corkins. 'Now this is not an accepted fact, and parents regularly give their children alternative beverages.'
Some experts argue that low-fat milk, once promoted for weight control, may backfire. In a 2013 JAMA Pediatrics
They also noted that key vitamins in milk, like A and D, are fat-soluble and may be less absorbable in reduced-fat versions.
Others question whether schools rely too heavily on milk to deliver those nutrients in the first place. 'There are many sources of calcium in the diet, including dark green leafy veggies, tofu, beans, and fortified plant milks,' Gardner said. As for vitamin D, 'I want those kids to be getting a healthy dose of sunshine most days of the year.'
To Gardner, the real issue is how much weight milk carries in the broader conversation. 'I'd say restricting soda consumption would be more important than making whole milk available,' he said.
The Rest of the Tray
Walk through a typical school cafeteria and you'll likely see trays filled with prepackaged chicken nuggets, reheated pizza, and flavored yogurts. These meals meet federal nutrition standards not because they're fresh, but because they hit targets for calories, fat, and sodium.
A 2025
To qualify for reimbursement, meals must follow federal rules, providing fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and milk, while staying under calorie and sodium caps. However, meeting the numbers doesn't guarantee meaningful nourishment. Ultra-processed foods can check the boxes while remaining high in additives and low in quality.
Kids don't just eat these foods, they learn to crave them.
That makes school choices harder. Even plain whole milk may lose out next to chocolate milk. While schools debate which milk to serve, many children are already wired for ultra-processed options.
To Marshall, that's the bigger issue. 'Sixty to seventy percent of our calories now come from packaged food,' he said. 'It's not a good thing, especially in school lunches.'
The Cost of Convenience
Part of the reason processed foods dominate school lunches—and American pantries—is cost and convenience.
Nutrition directors are expected to feed students on razor-thin budgets. The federal reimbursement—
It's cheaper to heat frozen pizza than prepare a fresh stir-fry. And once processed foods are built into school procurement systems, sourced from national vendors, packaged to USDA specs, and delivered on tight schedules, they're hard to replace.
Just as not every family has a quality grocery store nearby or a parent with extra time to cook, not every school has the staff or kitchen to cook from scratch. Not every supplier offers whole or reduced-fat milk. Even a two-cent increase per milk carton can stretch a district's budget, Byler told The Epoch Times.
However, some argue the issue isn't funding—it's priorities. 'The country is spending $11 billion a year on SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] for sugary sodas,' said Marshall. 'What if we used that money for healthy food choices instead?'
In that way, schools operate much like households, choosing what's manageable now, even if the long-term costs to health and learning are harder to see. Advocates say the return on investment is there, but the system doesn't always allow schools to think that far ahead.
A Moment for More Than Milk
With new federal dietary guidelines set to be released later this year, and political winds shifting the national conversation, the timing may be right for something more than a milk fight.
'Why are we messing around here?' Byler asked. 'This is our future that we're feeding.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A record-low 54% of U.S. adults say they drink alcohol, new poll shows
Fewer Americans are reporting that they drink alcohol amid a growing belief that even moderate alcohol consumption is a health risk, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday. The survey finds that 54% of U.S. adults say they drink alcoholic beverages such as liquor, wine or beer — "the lowest by one percentage point in Gallup's nearly 90-year trend," the analytics company says. And a record high percentage of U.S. adults, 53%, now say moderate drinking is bad for their health, up from 28% in 2015. The uptick in doubt about alcohol's benefits is largely driven by young adults — the age group that is most likely to believe drinking "one or two drinks a day" can cause health hazards — but older adults are also now increasingly likely to think moderate drinking carries risks. The findings of the poll, which was conducted in July, indicate that after years of many believing that moderate drinking was harmless — or even beneficial — worries about alcohol consumption are taking hold. According to Gallup's data, even those who consume alcohol are drinking less. The federal government is updating new dietary guidelines, including those around alcohol. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, government data showed U.S. alcohol consumption was trending up. But other government surveys have shown a decline in certain types of drinking, particularly among teenagers and young adults. This comes alongside a new drumbeat of information about alcohol's risks. While moderate drinking was once thought to have benefits for heart health, health professionals in recent years have pointed to overwhelming evidence that alcohol consumption leads to negative health outcomes and is a leading cause of cancer. Additionally, there are other factors contributing to the changing perspectives around alcohol, Willa Bennett, editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan and Seventeen, said on "CBS Mornings Plus" Wednesday. "We know this generation is increasingly out in the world trying to find real community and camaraderie," Bennett said. People don't seem to need alcohol to go out anymore, she said. Other factors include less stigma around not drinking and the prevalence of social media. "People do want control of their image," Bennett said. "People don't want to give that up. It's scary. What are the long term risks?" Growing skepticism about alcohol's benefits Younger adults have been quicker than older Americans to accept that drinking is harmful, but older adults are coming around to the same view. About two-thirds of 18- to 34-year-olds believe moderate drinking is unhealthy, according to the poll, up from about 4 in 10 in 2015. Older adults are less likely to see alcohol as harmful — about half of Americans age 55 or older believe this — but that's a substantial increase, too. In 2015, only about 2 in 10 adults age 55 or older thought alcohol was bad for their health. In the past, moderate drinking was thought to have some benefits. That idea came from imperfect studies that largely didn't include younger people and couldn't prove cause and effect. Now the scientific consensus has shifted, and several countries recently lowered their alcohol consumption recommendations. Earlier this year, the outgoing U.S. surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, recommended a label on bottles of beer, wine and liquor that would clearly outline the link between alcohol consumption and cancer. "Alcohol is a well-established, preventable cause of cancer responsible for about 100,000 cases of cancer and 20,000 cancer deaths annually in the United States — greater than the 13,500 alcohol-associated traffic crash fatalities per year in the U.S. — yet the majority of Americans are unaware of this risk," Murthy said in a statement in January. The federal government's current dietary guidelines recommend Americans not drink or, if they do consume alcohol, men should limit themselves to two drinks a day or fewer while women should stick to one or fewer. Gallup's director of U.S. social research, Lydia Saad, said shifting health advice throughout older Americans' lives may be a reason they have been more gradual than young adults to recognize alcohol as harmful. "Older folks may be a little more hardened in terms of the whiplash that they get with recommendations," Saad said. "It may take them a little longer to absorb or accept the information. Whereas, for young folks, this is the environment that they've grown up in ... in many cases, it would be the first thing young adults would have heard as they were coming into adulthood." The government is expected to release new guidelines later this year, under the directive of health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has promised big changes. Kennedy has not hinted at how the alcohol recommendations may shift. Drinking rates fall to decade low Slightly more than half of Americans, 54%, report that they drink alcohol — a low in Gallup's data that is especially pronounced among women and young adults. The previous low was 55%, recorded in 1958. "Declines in alcohol consumption do not appear to be caused by people shifting to other mood-altering substances — in particular, recreational marijuana, which is now legal in about half of U.S. states," Gallup said in a news release. "Although marijuana use is higher today than a decade ago, it has been fairly steady over the past four years and thus doesn't appear to be a factor in people choosing not to drink alcohol." Gallup says it has been tracking Americans' drinking behavior since 1939. Since 2001, it has tracked their views on health implications related to moderate drinking. Young Americans' alcohol consumption has been trending downward for years, accelerating the overall decline in alcohol consumption. In sharp contrast with Gallup's findings two decades ago, when young adults were likeliest to report drinking, young adults' drinking rate is now slightly below middle-aged and older adults. Americans' reported drinking is among the lowest since the question was first asked in 1939. For most of the last few decades, at least 6 in 10 Americans have reported drinking alcoholic beverages, only dipping below that point a few times in the question's history. Americans who drink alcohol are consuming less Even if concerns about health risks aren't causing some adults to give up alcohol entirely, these worries could be influencing how often they drink. The survey found that adults who think moderate drinking is bad for one's health are just as likely as people who don't share those concerns to report that they drink, but fewer of the people with health worries had consumed alcohol recently. About half of those who worry moderate drinking is unhealthy said they had a drink in the previous week, compared with about 7 in 10 who did not think drinking was bad for their health. Overall, only about one-quarter of Americans who drink said they had consumed alcohol in the prior 24 hours, a record low in the survey. Roughly 4 in 10 said that it had been more than a week since they had poured a drink. Trump sounds off on potential security guarantees for Ukraine Russia responds to potential Ukraine security guarantees as Trump signals U.S. support Celia Rose Gooding takes on Uhura's legacy in "Star Trek: Strange New Worlds" Solve the daily Crossword


Forbes
34 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump's First Term Degraded Military Health. His Second Must Rebuild It
Recently, Senators McConnell (R-KY) and Coons (D-DE) cosponsored a bill to invest more than $850 billion to strengthen our nation's defense industrial base, upgrade its shipbuilding capabilities, replenish munitions, and support key allies. Although these are worthy goals, Congress and the White House must not overlook the system that safeguards the health of American warfighters - our military's most important asset. Last March, the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), made pointed remarks at the outset of a hearing on stabilizing the military health system: America's Military Health System Is Unique Unlike the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) or private healthcare systems, military health must always be ready to deploy uniformed healthcare professionals anywhere in the world in support 0f U.S. combat operations and other missions, including peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. To enable this work, the MHS maintains a network of stateside military hospitals and clinics, supplemented by healthcare purchased from private doctors and healthcare systems to treat active-duty service members, their family members, and military retirees. This second mission reinforces the first. The clinical duties that military doctors, nurses, and other health professionals perform in stateside military hospitals helps keep their skills sharp between deployments. It also allows them to teach and inspire the next generation of military healthcare professionals. In times of conflict, military hospitals receive and treat complex casualties. Finally, the high-quality care to wounded, ill and injured servicemembers as well as their families and military retirees helps the DoD recruit and retain its 'all-volunteer' force. Healthy Forces Are Vital For Battlefield Success Military health has played a key role in American history since the founding of our republic. In the Winter of 1777, General George Washington ordered the inoculation of the Continental Army against smallpox. It was the first time in history that an Army was immunized by command order. Washington also instituted policies on camp cleanliness and took other actions to preserve his army's fighting strength. The principles he established still guide military medicine to this day. Health protection is so important to preserving fighting strength that the U.S. military monitors every unit's 'disease and non-battle injury (DNBI)' rates to evaluate the quality of its leadership and medical support. This discipline paid off in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite logistical challenges and austere conditions, military medicine drove rates of DNBIs and deaths from severe battlefield wounds to the lowest levels in the history of warfare. It's one of the most remarkable achievements in the history of American medicine. Many of the innovations they pioneered have been adopted by civilian healthcare. Post-War Decisions Eroded Hard-Won Gains Instead of recognizing the value of military health, budget officials in the Pentagon viewed the MHS as little more than an HMO for beneficiaries. As the wars wound down, they began siphoning military health funding and positions for other DoD priorities. As a result, spending on military healthcare flattened, and is now far behind healthcare spending in the VA and our nation overall. During Trump's first term, the Pentagon compounded this error by directing military families and retirees to go elsewhere for treatment. Then, as visits and hospital admissions fell, they downsized or closed many military clinics and hospitals. Even top hospitals, such as Walter Reed and Naval Medical Center San Diego, were left underfunded, understaffed, and underutilized. This weakened the link between stateside care and battlefield care. By the time the Joint Chiefs of Staff realized that privatization had gone too far, the damage was done. In 2023, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks issued a directive to reverse course and begin restoring the MHS. What About Now? Today, different leaders are in charge. In the past, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has advocated diverting military and veteran healthcare benefits to enhance the Pentagon's "war-fighting capability." Military and veterans' healthcare IS a warfighting capability. It's a major reason why American servicemembers fight so hard, accept such risks and reenlist to do it again. Until recently, they knew that every time they were deployed, their families would be cared for by doctors and nurses who understood the stresses of military life. They were also confident that if anyone in their unit became ill or was wounded in battle, they'd receive the best healthcare in the world, expert rehabilitation, and if needed, long-term care. If the Pentagon resumes its push to privatize the military health system, it will harm the health of our armed forces and diminish their battlefield performance. Two former Hegseth aides said as much in a recent New York Times op-ed: Why You and Trump Should Care About Military Health Although most Americans give little thought to military health, servicemembers, veterans and military retirees know better. If any member of your family, a friend, or a neighbor currently serves in uniform, you should care. If one or more of your children or grandchildren are considering military service, you should care. If you value any of the numerous advances military health has contributed to American medicine throughout our nation's history, you should care. As Commander-in-Chief of our nation's armed forces, President Trump should care, and direct Defense Secretary Hegseth and his senior staff to rebuild our nation's military health system.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
You can cut your risk of dementia by 61% by doing this — but you have to start before age 70
Listen up — your brain health might depend on it. New research suggests that a single device can dramatically reduce your dementia risk, but only if you get one before the age of 70. The findings come as dementia diagnoses are on the rise nationwide, with the number of Americans affected by the memory-robbing disease expected to double by 2060. Advertisement 3 Studies suggest that one in 10 older Americans currently have dementia. fizkes – The device that can make a difference? A simple hearing aid. Researchers looked at 2,953 adults from the long-running Framingham Heart Study, which has tracked heart and brain health in thousands of people since the 1940s. At the start, they were 60 or older and dementia-free. Each took hearing tests between 1977 and 1998, and scientists followed them for up to 20 years to see who developed dementia. Advertisement Over the follow-up period, 583 people — about 20% — developed dementia. The biggest brain boost was seen in people who started wearing hearing aids in their 60s. They had a whopping 61% lower risk of dementia compared to those with hearing loss who never used the devices. People in their 60s with normal hearing also had a 29% lower risk than those with untreated hearing loss. Advertisement But once participants hit age 70, hearing aids didn't offer much protection. 'Managing hearing loss during midlife — improving hearing with the use of a hearing aid — could help protect the brain and reduce risk of dementia,' Dr. Sudha Seshadri, a behavioral neurologist and co-author of the study, told MedPage Today. Hearing loss and the link to memory The new study adds to a growing body of evidence that hearing aids may also lend a hand to your brain. 3 Hearing aids are electronic devices that amplify sounds for people with hearing loss – Advertisement In one 2023 study, hearing aids cut cognitive decline by nearly 50% over three years in adults aged 70 to 84 who were already at high risk for dementia. They also saw major improvements in communication. Scientists are still digging into exactly why hearing aids seem to help, but a few theories are already making noise. When hearing fades, your brain works harder to fill in the blanks. That constant mental strain can take a toll on memory and thinking ability, according to UCLA Health. Hearing loss has also been shown to speed up brain shrinkage with age, a process already linked to cognitive decline. Social isolation may play a role, too. Older adults with hearing loss tend to withdraw from conversations and social settings, which means less mental stimulation — another potential dementia risk factor. Experts say the link between hearing loss and dementia could be a golden opportunity for early intervention. 3 Over-the-counter hearing aids became available in the US in October 2022. ManuPadilla – Advertisement Making hearing aids more accessible Hearing loss is the third most common chronic condition in the US, behind arthritis and heart disease. Nearly 27 million Americans over 50 are affected, but just one in seven use a hearing aid, according to Johns Hopkins. Even among those who do, the average user waits about 10 years before seeking help. During that time, communication breaks down, relationships suffer, and the risks of depression, isolation and cognitive decline climb. But things might be shifting. In 2022, the FDA approved a new category of over-the-counter hearing aids, allowing Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss to buy them directly in stores or online — no prescription, no audiologist required. Advertisement The move was aimed at making hearing care cheaper and easier to access, tackling two of the biggest reasons millions avoid getting help. Now, it may be good news for the brain too. A January study found Americans over 55 face a 42% lifetime risk of developing dementia, with new cases expected to reach one million per year by 2060 without major intervention. That's a wide reaching problem, as dementia's impact extends beyond memory loss. The disease increases the risk of a range of physical and mental health issues, including infections, falls, cardiovascular problems, malnutrition and depression.