L.A. Unified Bans Flavored Milk

[Ben]

I caught this while I was catching up on DVR'd episodes of Red Eye, so no link, but one of the stories they covered was that L.A. Unified School District has banned flavored milk.

The reason given by the head ban-head? "It's a social justice issue." If it's a social justice issue, shouldn't they have banned the white milk?

On a saner note, it seems incredibly stupid to me, even if they want to claim it's an obesity issue. I know PETA and other organizations hate milk, but I think there is still a pretty good segment of the educated scientific community that  believes milk is good for you even if it does have fat, or at least not bad for you. I can't believe that any sugar put into flavored milk is worse than any sugar they put in the flavored fruit drinks that are still allowed.

[French G.]

I'm pretty sure my 3 year old would go all Molon Labe on them if they tried to take her chocolate milk. I've done it before, it's a rather inhuman and incessant noise. Damn, can we not be kids anymore? I remember in the '80s the school cafeteria got the newest craze, jello pudding pops. We had kids injuring their tongues by freezing them to the pops. Who knew, we should have sued for great justice.

[makattak]

Damn, can we not [let] be kids anymore?

We've been regulating and outlawing childhood for most of my life.

I'll bet it still exists in most small towns across the country. I get to fight for my little one to have a childhood here in NoVA. (And dream about moving to a small town.)

[41magsnub]

Yeah, at least with milk there is some nutrition delivered with the calories and fat.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

its silly what they do in schools. i almost had a stroke when they removed the swings "because they are too dangerous"

[makattak]

its silly what they do in schools. i almost had a stroke when they removed the swings "because they are too dangerous"

.... THEY REMOVED SWINGS!?!?!?!? 

I was angry about the removal of merry-go-round and monkeybars.

SWINGS?!!!?

Maybe I'm wrong and this country is already doomed.

[HankB]

I guess they never heard of skim milk or sugar-free Nesquick . . .

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

.... THEY REMOVED SWINGS!?!?!?!? 

I was angry about the removal of merry-go-round and monkeybars.

SWINGS?!!!?

Maybe I'm wrong and this country is already doomed.

yea swings.  i can assure you they did not go quietly and no one answered "who the f came up with this idea?"  i think they were a lil put off by vocabulary at the pta meeting.  its mostly skirts

[mtnbkr]

I don't know offhand about swings (the playgrounds in my neighborhood and the local parks have them), but I know for a fact the school my daughter attends in Manassas has monkeybars because she fell off them this Spring and broke her arm.

Mak, you need to get out of Reston.  We still allow childhood here in Manassas.  It ain't as chi-chi as Fairfax County, but we're not quite full on Brazil (the movie) yet.

Chris

[MillCreek]

Ms. MillCreek 1.0 is a dietitian who has been running a school nutrition services department for a large school district for about 20 years now.  She does not think it funny when I call her the head lunch lady, but I digress...

In a nutshell, a lot of school districts are doing this in order to achieve compliance with the nutrition regulations by the USDA.  In order to achieve the required calorie counts while adhering to the required limits on sugar, fat, sodium and other nutrients, requires a balancing act.  This is all geared towards reaching public health goals which has identified childhood obesity as something that must be addressed.  The commercial dairies that produce chocolate milk for the school lunch program already use skim milk.  It is up to each district to decide if they wish to offer chocolate milk or not, as long as they meet the overall USDA requirements for the school lunch program.  

[Jamisjockey]

Okay wait.  
Did they ban the schools selling flavored milk, or the kids from bringing it in?
There is a huge difference.
Considering that school lunches are highly subsidized by the taxpayer, you damn well better believe that if I'm being forced to feed poor kids (and subsidize the lunches of those who buy it at full price), that they better not be feeding them junk.  
Most off-the-shelf flavored milk is jacked full of added sugar.
I'm fully against subsidizing the obesity epidemic.  IMHO If I'm going to be forced to feed the poor, they should be eating healthy. Because you damn well know that we'll be paying thier health care down the road.  
And when you take money from the government, you should no longer be free to make those decisions for yourself.
Banning kids from bringing it in....now there's a reason to get one's dander up.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I don't know offhand about swings (the playgrounds in my neighborhood and the local parks have them), but I know for a fact the school my daughter attends in Manassas has monkeybars because she fell off them this Spring and broke her arm.

Mak, you need to get out of Reston.  We still allow childhood here in Manassas.  It ain't as chi-chi as Fairfax County, but we're not quite full on Brazil (the movie) yet.

Chris

to pull off the swing purge here they bought one of those 50 k monkeybars on steroids deals. and they don't scap the swings outa hand they just remove the old ones and fail to replace them claiming the old ones were in need of repair and too tall let kids go too high and get hurt  and then theres no money left in budget after 50 k new age equipment is bought.  its all bought by the pta so the skirts are in control and thats never good

[longeyes]

School food is prison food.  Grasp that and you've grasped it all.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

some of the grub at schools near here is right good.  the local catholic school has a girl who was a chef at the greenbriar INN AT LIL WASHINGTON in charge.  all fresh every day  ordered ahead


corrected food reference  sorry

[mtnbkr]

School food is prison food.  Grasp that and you've grasped it all.

Freedom is slavery...immediately after Recess.

Chris

[longeyes]

Maybe if we really remembered what freedom was all about we wouldn't be confusing freedom with junk food.  Freedom starts from a much earlier place. By the time it gets to the public school system, with all that implies, it's a whole different animal.  Schools are just holding pens for most of their inhabitants.  Kids need to be integrated into the real world much earlier, learning alongside adults.

[Perd Hapley]

I know "social justice" can mean anything, but how do they justify calling it that?

[Jamisjockey]

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/diet-nutrition/story/2011/06/LA-school-district-bans-chocolate-milk/48458176/1?csp=34news

Found it.  Much as I suspected.  Again, back to my original point.  

I find myself strangely in agreeance with the LA Unified School District.

If I'm being forced at gunpoint to feed other people's children, they should be getting fed appropriate foods.  Fattening the little bastards up is just going to lead to more expenses for the taxpayer down the road.

  

I know "social justice" can mean anything, but how do they justify calling it that?

Fattening up the poor, I presume.  They get fed junk food while the wealthy eat fresh organic produce. 

[makattak]

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/diet-nutrition/story/2011/06/LA-school-district-bans-chocolate-milk/48458176/1?csp=34news

Found it.  Much as I suspected.  Again, back to my original point.  

I find myself strangely in agreeance with the LA Unified School District.

If I'm being forced at gunpoint to feed other people's children, they should be getting fed appropriate foods.  Fattening the little bastards up is just going to lead to more expenses for the taxpayer down the road.

Unintended consequences. Why was chocolate milk introduced in the first place?

And, if I may note from your article:

She noted the district serves fruit juices containing 27 to 29 grams of sugar per serving, more than the amount of sugar in flavored milk — 20 grams in 8 ounces of fat-free chocolate milk and 27 grams in fat-free strawberry.

[Jamisjockey]

Uninteneded consequences. Why was chocolate milk introduced in the first place?

In the article it says that the kids drink more milk if its flavored.  To which I say, no *expletive deleted*it, its jacked full of sugar, of coure they'll drink it. 

[Ben]

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/diet-nutrition/story/2011/06/LA-school-district-bans-chocolate-milk/48458176/1?csp=34news

If I'm being forced at gunpoint to feed other people's children, they should be getting fed appropriate foods.  Fattening the little bastards up is just going to lead to more expenses for the taxpayer down the road.

I can agree with that too, just as I don't believe if you're on welfare you should be buying gourmet food, almond joys, or whiskey.

But does this only affect those on a taxpayer funded school lunch program, or does it also affect those kids paying for their cafeteria lunches? Because maybe it sounds unfair, but if I'm paying for my kid's lunch, maybe I want them to have the option of chocolate milk over soda. And possibly that's where the "social justice" thing is coming into play -- if the supported kids can't have it, then the self-supporting kids can't either, because it's "unfair".

Because though I can agree with Jamis' point, I'm still not sure that's the greater motive as to why they're doing this -- it seems more like an ancillary effect from their social engineering.

[Jamisjockey]

I can agree with that too, just as I don't believe if you're on welfare you should be buying gourmet food, almond joys, or whiskey.

But does this only affect those on a taxpayer funded school lunch program, or does it also affect those kids paying for their cafeteria lunches? Because maybe it sounds unfair, but if I'm paying for my kid's lunch, maybe I want them to have the option of chocolate milk over soda. And possibly that's where the "social justice" thing is coming into play -- if the supported kids can't have it, then the self-supporting kids can't either, because it's "unfair".

Because though I can agree with Jamis' point, I'm still not sure that's the greater motive as to why they're doing this -- it seems more like an ancillary effect from their social engineering.

An average school lunch runs under $3.  Whens the last time you got a meal for under $3?  Or hell, even fed a school aged child for that much?
 Fact is, the school lunches even for those who pay full price are subsidized by the taxpayer pool.  So while others who are buying school lunches might also be taxpayers, we are all pooling together and subsidizing those lunches. 
So I have no problem with the lunches being mandatoraily healthy, bland, sugarless, and boring.
 
If I don't want thier lunches controlled, I'l pack them myself (which I already do, so I can feed them healthy food that doesn't seem to be on our school lunch menu).

[Ben]

An average school lunch runs under $3. 

Not arguing with you, because if we're not on the same page, we're at least within a page of each other. :)

But I saw nothing in the article about if this was only at the Elementary school level or K-12. I have no kids in school, but back when I was in Junior High and High School, you had the option of eating the crappy "healthy" food in the cafeteria, or getting stuff from the school snack bar, where you could buy hamburgers (that already had a good heaping of soy in them back then), sodas, chocolate milk, donuts, and all kinds of junk food. That food was definitely not subsidized (other than possibly the snack bar employee salaries). Maybe the snack bars don't even exist anymore, but if they do, I see them clearly separate from the cafeteria.

[MillCreek]

Ben, a couple of things:

The USDA regulations apply for any school lunch program receiving funds or commodities from the USDA.  This would be virtually every public school.  It matters not if the child receives a free/reduced lunch or pays full price for the lunch.

In many, many school districts (possibly the majority, but I am not sure), the school lunch program has to be self-supporting, if not actually make money for the district.  In the program run by Ms. MillCreek 1.0, the revenue from selling food has to cover the staff salaries, benefits, food costs, etc.  Her program receives no money from the district, and in fact the program is used as a cash cow for the district.  Her 'excess' revenues over costs are put into the district's general fund, which really ticks her off, as she could do great things on improving the program with the money.

Finally, a lot of school lunch programs are now outsourced and run by commercial companies, such as Sodexho and the like.  They come into the district and promise the school board that they will make money for the schools, so a lot of districts have gone this route.

PS edited to add:  a lot of the snack bars, coke machines or what have you are now operated by the PTA or student government as fund-raising mechanisms, and as such do not fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA and do not have to follow the USDA regs.  They are not a part of the school nutrition program.  When my kids were in high school, the school store and snack bar sold junk food.  This also caused gnashing of Ms. MillCreek 1.0's teeth, since these siphoned customers with their money away from her lunch program.

[Ben]

That's interesting stuff I didn't know. Thanks for the rundown.

Also no offense to Mrs. M over the "crappy healthy food" comment. That was meant to be what 15 year old minds thought when they had the choice of Salisbury steak and milk from the cafeteria, or a burger and coke from the snack bar. :)