logo
Milk, Science, and School Lunches: A Battle Over What Kids Eat

Milk, Science, and School Lunches: A Battle Over What Kids Eat

Epoch Times19-05-2025

Lawmakers are pushing to bring whole milk back to school cafeterias after it was banned in 2012. It's a battle years in the making, but milk may be the wrong fight.
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.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Health Insurers Call Out Trump On Promise To Not Cut Seniors' Medicare
Health Insurers Call Out Trump On Promise To Not Cut Seniors' Medicare

Forbes

time34 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Health Insurers Call Out Trump On Promise To Not Cut Seniors' Medicare

The nation's health insurance companies say legislation wending its way through the Republican-controlled Congress would break a promise by Donald Trump and the GOP not to cut Medicare benefits to seniors. It's the latest part of the healthcare industry to fight back against proposed federal cuts in healthcare benefits to millions of Americans. Already, physicians led by the American Medical Association have launched an ad campaign targeting U.S. Senators in an effort to thwart the budget legislation. Legislation known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that narrowly passed the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives two weeks ago would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion and increase the number of uninsured by 7.8 million, a KFF analysis shows. But the powerful lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) said Medicare, too, would be cut and raise costs on millions of seniors. AHIP's members include some of the nation's largest health insurers, including Elevance Health, Humana, CVS Health's Aetna and an array of Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. These health insurers, including UnitedHealth Group's UnitedHealthcare, provide health benefits to more than half of the nation's eligible seniors through privatized coverage known as Medicare Advantage. The plans contract with the federal government to provide traditional coverage available in traditional Medicare plus extra benefits and services to seniors, such as disease management and nurse help hotlines with some also offering vision, dental care and wellness programs. 'The President and Congressional leaders made a clear promise to seniors that there would be no cuts to Medicare as part of the budget reconciliation legislation," AHIP President and CEO Mike Tuffin said Monday. 'Last-minute attempts to cut Medicare Advantage to fund other priorities would directly undermine that promise and lead to higher costs and reductions in benefits for more than 34 million seniors,' Tuffin said. "We oppose cuts to Medicare Advantage, including the No UPCODE Act, and urge Congress to keep the promise to America's seniors.' Any loss in health plan members covered by Medicare Advantage would be an added blow to health insurers. They need large numbers of subscribers paying premiums to cover their costs. Many of these same health insurers have been hit hard by rising costs from an influx of seniors purchasing Medicare Advantage.

New Strategy to Manage Childhood Obesity
New Strategy to Manage Childhood Obesity

Medscape

time42 minutes ago

  • Medscape

New Strategy to Manage Childhood Obesity

Obesity is increasingly considered unpreventable, making early and aggressive treatment a priority to minimize comorbidities. Although 30% of adult obesity begins in childhood, the most effective treatments for childhood obesity — medication and surgery — are often delayed in favor of diet and exercise, which are largely ineffective. In this ReCAP, Dr Janey Pratt, director of the Adolescent Bariatric Surgery Program at Lucille Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford, California, points to a recent Cochrane database systematic review which showed school-based diet and exercise interventions did not prevent or reduce childhood obesity. She goes on to explain the most recent American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guidelines which, for the first time, recommend that treatment, rather than watchful waiting, is indicated for childhood obesity. Dr Pratt explains that FDA-approved obesity medications are an option for children as young as age 12, but surgery often has better long-term results. She outlines the medications available to treat childhood obesity, and then the 10-year outcomes of the Teen-LABS study, which show that half of adolescents who underwent bariatric surgery for obesity maintained significant weight loss. She concludes that a strategy of surgery first, followed by medication if needed, can optimize childhood obesity management and avoid lifelong medication for some patients.

NIH scientists publish declaration criticizing Trump's deep cuts in public health research
NIH scientists publish declaration criticizing Trump's deep cuts in public health research

Los Angeles Times

timean hour ago

  • Los Angeles Times

NIH scientists publish declaration criticizing Trump's deep cuts in public health research

WASHINGTON — In his confirmation hearings to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya pledged his openness to views that might conflict with his own. 'Dissent,' he said, 'is the very essence of science.' That commitment is being put to the test. On Monday, scores of scientists at the agency sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, challenging 'policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' It says: 'We dissent.' In a capital where insiders often insist on anonymity to say such things publicly, 92 NIH researchers, program directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter — and their careers on the line. An additional 250 of their colleagues across the agency endorsed the declaration without using their names. The four-page letter, addressed to Bhattacharya, also was sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH. White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the administration's approach to federal research and said President Trump is focused on restoring a 'Gold Standard' of science, not 'ideological activism.' The signers went public in the face of a 'culture of fear and suppression' they say Trump's administration has spread through the federal civil service. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the declaration says. Bhattacharya responded to the declaration by saying it 'has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months.' 'Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive,' he said in a statement. 'We all want the NIH to succeed.' Named for the agency's headquarters location in Maryland, the Bethesda Declaration details upheaval in the world's premier public health research institution over the course of mere months. It addresses the termination of 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12 billion and some of the human costs that have resulted, such as cutting off medication regimens to participants in clinical trials or leaving them with unmonitored device implants. In one case, an NIH-supported study of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Haiti had to be stopped, ceasing antibiotic treatment mid-course for patients. In a number of cases, trials that were mostly completed were rendered useless without the money to finish and analyze the work, the letter says. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million,' it says, 'it wastes $4 million.' Jenna Norton, who oversees health disparity research at the agency's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, recently appeared at a forum by Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., to talk about what's happening at the NIH. At the event, she masked to conceal her identity. Now the mask is off. She was a lead organizer of the declaration. 'I want people to know how bad things are at NIH,' Norton told The Associated Press. The signers said they modeled their indictment after Bhattacharya's Great Barrington Declaration in 2020, when he was a professor at Stanford University Medical School. His declaration drew together likeminded infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who dissented from what they saw as excessive COVID-19 lockdown policies and felt ostracized by the larger public health community that pushed those policies, including the NIH. 'He is proud of his statement, and we are proud of ours,' said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute who signed the Bethesda Declaration. As chief of the Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, Kobrin provides scientific oversight of researchers across the country who've been funded by the cancer institute or want to be. Cuts in personnel and money have shifted her work from improving cancer care research to what she sees as minimizing its destruction. 'So much of it is gone — my work,' she said. The 21-year NIH veteran said she signed because she didn't want to be 'a collaborator' in the political manipulation of biomedical science. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, also signed the declaration. 'We have a saying in basic science,' he said. 'You go and become a physician if you want to treat thousands of patients. You go and become a researcher if you want to save billions of patients. 'We are doing the research that is going to go and create the cures of the future,' he added. But that won't happen, he said, if Trump's Republican administration prevails with its searing grant cuts. The NIH employees interviewed by the AP emphasized they were speaking for themselves and not for their institutes nor the NIH. Employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers gave their support to the declaration. Most who signed are intimately involved with evaluating and overseeing extramural research grants. The letter asserts 'NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety' and the agency is shirking commitments to trial participants who 'braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health.' The Trump administration has gone at public health research on several fronts, both directly, as part of its broad effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion values throughout the bureaucracy, and as part of its drive to starve some universities of federal money. At the White House, Desai said Americans 'have lost confidence in our increasingly politicized healthcare and research apparatus that has been obsessed with DEI and COVID, which the majority of Americans moved on from years ago.' This has forced 'indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' the declaration says. Some NIH employees have previously come forward in televised protests to air grievances, and many walked out of Bhattacharya's town hall with staff. The declaration is the first cohesive effort to register agency-wide dismay with the NIH's direction. The dissenters remind Bhattacharya in their letter of his oft-stated ethic that academic freedom must be a lynchpin in science. With that in place, he said in a statement in April, 'NIH scientists can be certain they are afforded the ability to engage in open, academic discourse as part of their official duties and in their personal capacities without risk of official interference, professional disadvantage or workplace retaliation.' Now it will be seen whether that's enough to protect those NIH employees challenging the Trump administration and him. 'There's a book I read to my kids, and it talks about how you can't be brave if you're not scared,' said Norton, who has three young children. 'I am so scared about doing this, but I am trying to be brave for my kids because it's only going to get harder to speak up. 'Maybe I'm putting my kids at risk by doing this,' she added. 'And I'm doing it anyway because I couldn't live with myself otherwise.' 'In recent years, Americans have lost confidence in our increasingly politicized healthcare and research apparatus that has been obsessed with DEI and COVID, which the majority of Americans moved on from years ago,' spokesman Kush Desai said. 'The Trump administration is focused on restoring the Gold Standard of Science — not ideological activism — as the guiding principle of HHS, the NIH, and the CDC to finally address our chronic disease epidemic.' Woodward and Ellgren write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store