Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Michigan statewide regenerative soil program enters its third year
State-level wetlands law draws concerns in Illinois
Shelbyville student competes in National High School rodeo
USDA seeking public comment on beef carcass grade update
Agronomy Farm’s inaugural field day showcased soybeans
Clay Target league provides team experience for rural youth
Farm equipment sales down but combine purchases up in June
Corteva consolidates four seed brands under Hoegemeyer label
Gorman Heritage Farm showcasing ag with Farm Day Camps
Drought followed by wet spring may mean less hay this year
Family-owned farm to open grocery store in Columbus neighborhood
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Slow progress may be a gain, but it still feels slow

 

Sometimes we need to be happy with baby steps.

Slow progress can be so frustrating. That’s why I like to use paint when I do the occasional redecoration in my house – it’s instant progress and I get an instant reward, provided I chose the right color.

That kind of instant gratification almost never happens in the halls of Congress. But there is hope; legislation has been introduced in Congress called the School Milk Nutrition Act of 2017.

In short, if this bill passed, it would change the school lunch guidelines to allow for low-fat and fat-free milk, including flavored milk with no more than 150 calories in 8-ounce servings, in the federal school lunch and breakfast programs. This would make the USDA’s administrative changes from earlier this year permanent.

The bill also includes a pilot program for schools to test strategies for increasing milk consumption, such as improvements in packaging, merchandising and refrigeration.

My first question is, why did Congress feel the need to take flavored milk and full-fat milk out of the schools in the first place? It’s a proven fact that kids need fat for the correct development of their brain. Why not get it in one of nature’s most perfect foods?

And if kids overwhelmingly chose flavored milk over white milk in schools to begin with and they were consuming a daily 8-ounce serving of milk, why in heaven’s name would you take it out?

Yes, we know why. Folks in charge who like to follow the trends of whatever the latest blogger came up with, in regard to good nutrition, regardless of its scientific validity or sound research, made loud clanging noises that scared everyone into believing their agenda. Thus, they took the bait – hook, line and sinker – and believed that the fat and sugar in milk served in one 8-ounce portion at school was to blame for childhood obesity.

With this train of thought, you can conclude that parents have no influence on children. Tell that to the kindergarten teacher who just heard a 5-year-old use a curse word.

Once again, the loud minority of people who think that milk, fat and flavor are not good for our kids were able to swing the pendulum over to the extreme side that ended in lower milk consumption in schools, and now we have to work to get it back.

I’m thankful for this legislation and I know I need to be thankful for the baby steps that are happening to get flavored milk back in public schools, but it’s difficult to be patient when all I really want to say is, “If you hadn’t taken it away in the first place …”

Let’s be thankful for what we have; but, let’s also be careful not to lower our goals and expectations.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Melissa Hart may write to her in care of this publication.

11/8/2017