Food Politics

Lots of good stuff in the new guidelines, but I question the value of making all flavored milk nonfat. Milk with added sugar and no fat seems like a recipe for sugar spikes.

I agree with Angie, the allowing of flavored milk under the requirement that it is “low fat” is completely backwards. Kids and humans need fat, it’s time to stop running away from it directly into the hands of high-GI carbohydrates and sugars.

Better standards? Great! Honestly, how do you realistically get from “the old menu to the new menu” on 6 cents? I’m leery this is an unfunded mandate and have concerns this is the new “No Child Left Behind” standard. Lastly, how will we teach the cooks…to cook? Where is that plan or curriculum?

[...] http://www.foodpolitics.com/2012/01/cheers-for-usdas-new-nutrition-standards/ Share this:TwitterFacebookPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

Sounds like more costly meal. And a departure from what’s proven palatable to kids. How is success to be measured? Will someone be tracking how much of the new veggie glop kids are scraping into the trash? How much money should we flush down the drain on fancy grown-up food for kids when we should be teaching them math and science at school? Are you suggesting we bring back home economics classes so kids can learn to cook? And cooking class would be the basics or would it also be some impractical food snob TV chef nonsense? If a kid learns chemistry they can figure out for themselves how to cook, for pity’s sake. These kids still have parents, after all.

Hi Marion…. this is not a comment on this particular subject but actually a question for you; I’m not sure where to post a question?? Just wondering if you heard about a dozen or so Upstate girls who developed involuntary tics and other symptoms. Local health officials ruled out mold, chemicals, etc. in air quality. They call it conversion disorder — real symptoms but no physical cause. They’re treating this with a mix of psychotherapy, behavior changes and medications. What is your take on this? Just curious….

Mostly progress in the right direction. I agree that the low fat and skim milk is dumb and not supported by the science.

The dairy industry loves it because they get to sell what used to be a by product of making cream and cheese to in bulk to kids. Farmers used to use skim milk to fatten hogs, I’m sure the school lunch program is a more lucrative market.

More on the few studies that have compared outcomes for skim, low fat and full fat dairy.
http://annchilders.blogspot.com/2011/02/just-say-no-to-skim-milk.html

Skim milk is associated with weight gain and full fat dairy is associated with weight loss.

They should come out with a Hansel and Gretel Brand Skim Chocolate Milk. Guaranteed to fatten up those delectable little rugrats!

“Teach kids to cook” – the #1 thing to do.

TJ,

While it is true that humans need fat, it is also true that our bodies will manufacture all the required saturated fatty acids. We do not need to eat saturated fats such as those found in whole milk.

Why is this good? Why are we requiring our children to eat grains? Why is there no differentiation between non-starchy green vegetables (healthy) and starchy vegetables and fruit which are too high in sugars for any of us? Why are we feeding children low-fat anything, and why would it be OK to flavor milk if it is low-fat which will just increase the sugar content of something that already is high in lactose?
I am not applauding these standards and fear for children who are victims of the appalling lack of understanding of what is nutritious and what is not.

I agree with TJ and Angie. The lower in fat milk is, the higher in sugar it is. I’d also add that, the less fat they get, the more carbohydrates they will need to eat and, whether they are in the form of whole (or not) grains, potatoes, milk sugar, fruit, or even vegetables, all such carbohydrates (except fiber) end up as glucose in the blood. Overloading the system with carbohydrates requires more insulin to process and puts a strain on all parts of the body involved in glucose metabolism, which will more than likely lead to problems later–or even sooner in some cases. Do we know for sure that the rise in ADHD, autism, and other such brain issues in kids is not the result of reducing the amount of fat, especially sat fat, they eat over the past few decades? I’m not. Kids need a balanced diet with plenty of healthy, natural fats and should never be put on a low fat diet of any sort. Plenty of vegetables/variety? Good. Some fruit? Fine. Want to give them healthywholegrains? They don’t need them, but whatever. At least temper the effect of the grains and other sources of glucose on the body by including a healthy dose of natural fat to bring down the glycemic load of the meal. “Set a minimum and maximum level of calories” Bad, bad idea. If kids are given what their bodies need, they will eat the right amount of calories without any external controls. And kids need salt, too. Too little salt is just as bad as too much.
@Michael Bulger, “our bodies will manufacture all the required saturated fatty acids. ” From what? Mostly from glucose dumped into the blood by all the carbohydrates one has to eat when one tries to avoid sat fat. Remember that all sources of fat, even vegetable oils, have some sat fat in them (and, just to be clear, vegetable oil also has a lot of rancid, oxidating PUFA in it. Sat fat is much more stable and less prone to causing oxidative stress). Kids need fat, especially saturated fat, for their growing brains. It’s not an accident that mother’s milk is loaded with saturated fat. Why would anyone think that, just because they are a few years older, school age kids suddenly don’t need the sat fat in milk any more? It defies logic. To feed kids low fat milk and especially nonfat milk with added sugar is the best way I can think of to ensure that more kids will become T2 diabetic at a younger age, something that is already happening.

With a lot of food products, including store-bought milk, the low-fat/no-fat versions they replace simply substitute sugar with fat, and who knows what else. Anyone can do some nutrition label comparisons in the grocery store to verify this.

Although with store-bought milk, whether whole, low/no-fat, the pasteurization and homogenation process, in effect, destroys the rich micro-ecology of what makes real milk a nourishing good, making it much, much simpler in composition and unnatural. I consider store-bought milk to be a processed food.

I usually buy either unsweetened almond milk or coconut milk.

I know that many so badky want the government to be the arbiter of the health of every citizen of the United States. The reality is that no legislation or regulation will make anyone healthier. There have been policies and regulations for the school nutrition program for nearly a century and all I hear is how bad the food is and how unhealthy it is for our children.

I predict that in the years to come some albeit few will realize that even these new regulations or standards have failed to improve the health of children. Most will look at the standards and call for them to be changed because they are not enough. That is what is happening now because when those standards were set there were no doubt many who thought they had finally persuaded the government to act in the best interest of the poor unsuspecting children.

After all these years it is obvious to those paying attention that government standards and regualtions do not make us healthier. Health is a choice whose policies are set by families at least that is where I learned them.

I doubt that the 5g fat difference between 1% and whole milk has a significant effect on blood sugar spikes (by impeding digestion/absorption of sugar). I think the addition of 45 Calories has more of an effect on the body in a negative way. You can argue with me that fat from cows milk could be healthy or healthier, but these milk products are not coming from free roaming cows feeding on grass not treated with pesticides, etc, so I would say no, the milk fat in this case is not healthy. Also, pesticides consumed are stored in fat, so by not drinking fatty milk you are avoiding some pesticide consumption, because again, the cows in these cases are not on organic farms.

I’m happy to see these standards – not perfect but a step in the right direction, indeed. Now, how do we get kids to eat this stuff? Marion, I think you’re onto it by teaching kids where food comes from and how to cook. No home ec necessary – following a recipe is a great way to learn fractions. Think of it as math, science AND a good meal, all in one lesson plan. I’d like to add another suggestion: feed the kids when they’re hungry, and they’ll be more inclined to eat new stuff. in other words, have lunch after recess, not before. they will be more inclined to eat if they aren’t gunning for the playground, and they’ll have the nutrition they need to think and learn in the afternoon.

@Brandon, “I doubt that the 5g fat difference between 1% and whole milk has a significant effect on blood sugar spikes (by impeding digestion/absorption of sugar).” Perhaps. Only a diabetic who checks his/her blood sugar could know that for sure. (My T1 diabetic son doesn’t drink any milk because of the effect it has on his blood sugar.) And that might hold only if the amount of sugar stays the same. However as fat is removed sugar is added. Check the per serving count of carbs in low fat vs full fat milk. I don’t have any skim or low fat milk in my house, but I’m betting the protein count is higher as well and that would indicate added dried milk solids–a source of oxidized cholesterol. As to the fat, I certainly wouldn’t worry about an additional 45 calories–kids will burn those off easily–but you have a point about the pesticides and I don’t have an easy answer for that. But if the government is going to regulate what kids eat, I would think it prudent to start by removing the pesticides and other toxic contaminants from their food (fruits and vegetables can be contaminated with them as well) rather than the fat which is vital to their growing bodies. You don’t think schools are going to be buying their produce from organic farmers, do you?

[...] of Medicine to design nutrition standards that would: Increase the amount and variety of …www.foodpolitics.com/…/cheers-for-usdas-new-nutrition-stand…Source: Google Alerts – nutritionCheap Car Insurance in California [...]

Marion, I notice that you have never actually said anything about one subject and I think it is an important one, so I’d like to ask you straight out: do you agree that we should “eat more whole grains”? I suspect this is a kettle of worms for you but at some point you will have to come out for something and either side with the USDA people or the Gary Taubes contingent.

Maragaret,

The USDA has a wonderful website that lists the “nutrients” of various foods. Contrary to your assumption, the sugar content of whole milk and fat-free milk are the same. (Actually, whole milk has and extra 0.02 grams of sugar, but that is a very small difference.)

You can find similarly accessible information on how saturated fat is manufactured in the body and its association with obesity and chronic disease.

@Margeret

You’re right, there is more protein and sugar in 1 cup of fat free milk than there is in 1 cup of whole milk. Most brands don’t report it as different though because of rounding. But that is not because they ADD sugar and protein/milk solids, its because the fat in whole milk is taking up space/volume in the 1 cup of whole milk. When you take out the fat to make fat free, something needs to fill the space that fat normally fills. That space is filled with more fluid milk that contains water, protein, and sugar. Hopefully that made sense.

You’re right, I don’t actually know the effects of whole vs skim milk on blood sugar. I too have type 1 diabetics in my family, but I’ve never asked them to do such an experiment.

You’re also right, 45 Calories by itself is not a lot. But for someone trying to reduce their Calorie consumption, it adds up.

@My previous comment

After looking at Nutritionist Pro:
Protein in 1 cup Whole Milk: 7.686g (rounded to 8g on food label)
Protein in 1 cup Skim Milk: 8.217g (rounded to 8g on food label)

Sugar in 1 cup Whole Milk: 11.712g (rounded to 12g on food label)
Sugar in 1 cup Skim Milk: 12.152g (rounded to 12g on food label)

Marion, thanks for reminding people that the site is searchable–so many seem to post (rant) without bothering to even see what you have to say outside the current post or enlightening us as to how they supposedly know more than you do about the subject. It is clear that they have not read your books.

Thanks, Michael B. for keeping up the responses to the pseudoscience regularly posted by certain regulars. I follow their links and usually just arrive at another blog with no posted references other than self-help books written by the blogger or other such writers.

[...] are so many exciting things happening in the green blogosphere. The news ranges from the new USDA nutrition standards for school lunches to a study showing drinking red wine in moderation could reduce your risk of [...]

@justthefacts, I’m not sure to whom you are referring, but I think you’ll find that the links I provide are to a) actual science sources– for example: http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/43/5/731 and http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio or b) blogs of medical professionals who themselves link to volumes of scientific literature–it’s easier to link the blog than individually to the many links they, in turn, provide to the pertinent scientific literature. Some of them indeed have books to sell (not necessarily what I would call self help, but I suppose that is a matter of definition) but not all, and those books are not without their own scientific references. Dr. Nestle also has books to sell prominently displayed on this page–does that call into question what she writes in her blog? Apparently not.
@Brandon and @Michael Bulger, I stand corrected–for the moment–on the sugar and protein content of milk. It was not an assumption, but based on reading labels, which I do all the time. I’ve seen as much as a 3 gram difference in carbohydrate count between skim and whole milk. I never looked at protein, because it doesn’t concern me. That non fat milk solids are added to some brands of low fat and skim milk is information provided to me–by a source that has proved reliable on other issues. Sure, I understand the mathematics of what happens when differential volume is removed, and it would certainly account for the differences above. USDA nutrition scores are, I imagine averages and not specific to brand, but I’ll not argue the point further. It is a minor point. My major point is kids need fat of all kinds and shouldn’t be drinking or eating low fat anything–except, perhaps, as a way to avoid pesticides (and there should be a better way to avoid them!) Somehow I don’t think that is what the school nutrition guidelines formulators had in mind.

[...] policy critic Marion Nestle acknowledges that the new standards “may not sound like much. But. . . [they] must be seen as a major step [...]

[...] article Cheers for USDA’s new nutrition standards introduces improved recommendations for healthy eating in the US.  Overall the standards support [...]

[...] food system, for the good. There is talk of a new initiation brought on by Michelle Obama’s for healthier food in the school cafeterias around America. Their goals are around reducing saturated fat, and sodium, increasing fruit [...]

Firstly, Scientific American is a magazine, not a scientific study. I suggest you look further into the design of the studies referred to in that article and what the subjects actually ate. (Hint: The subjects on the low-carb diet ate the USDA recommended levels of saturated fat. That’s much lower that what the average American now eats.)

Here’s a link to get you started: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681#t=article

Secondly, research that suggests highly processed carbs (i.e., sugar-sweetened beverages) are not much of an improvement in place of SFA, does not vindicate your track. Alas, we’ve been over this time and time again. Have a nice day, Margaret.

Excuse me. My last post might be misleading. To clarify, the SFA intake of the low-carb subjects was just slightly higher than standard recommendations. It was also just slightly higher than the low-fat subjects, approx. 12% vs. 10%. I incorrectly wrote that these figures were much less than average US intake. I was basing this on a figure for solid fats, as opposed to saturated fats. FYI, the fat in milk is a solid fat.