Photo credit: hechingerreport.org
This story was produced by Grist and reprinted with permission.
In 2010, the U.S. enacted the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act with the intention of addressing the dual issues of childhood obesity and food insecurity, aiming to enhance the nutritional quality of school meals. Following this legislative change, the Department of Agriculture revised its guidance for schools in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) to prohibit the use of 2 percent and whole milk, marking a significant shift towards healthier options by eliminating what were deemed too fatty for young consumers.
In response to these regulations, Representative Glenn “G.T.” Thompson from Pennsylvania has sought to overturn this policy. He argues that the changes made over a decade ago have contributed to a noticeable drop in milk consumption among schoolchildren. Thompson claims, “We have lost a generation of milk drinkers since whole milk was demonized and removed from schools,” speaking to agricultural stakeholders in 2021.
Since 2019, Thompson has introduced the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act three times, each attempt falling short. This January, he brought forth the bill again, igniting a coalition of diverse groups concerned with animal welfare, environmental issues, and public health to advocate for a vegan alternative. Recently, a bipartisan group of lawmakers proposed the Freedom in School Cafeterias and Lunches (FISCAL) Act, which aims to redefine milk within the NSLP to include plant-based options. Currently, NSLP guidelines stipulate that schools can provide milk substitutions only with parental or medical documentation, but the FISCAL Act seeks to normalize the availability of vegan milks alongside traditional dairy options.
Related: Want to learn more about how climate change is affecting education? Sign up for our newsletter.
Shifting from cow’s milk to plant-based alternatives could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with food production. However, proponents of the FISCAL Act are prioritizing the health benefits of options like soy and oat milk, particularly for students who experience lactose intolerance or simply prefer non-dairy choices. “Most of this nation’s children of color are lactose intolerant, and yet our school lunch program policy makes it difficult for these kids to access a nutritious fluid beverage that doesn’t make them sick,” stated Senator Cory Booker, a co-sponsor of the bill. This emphasis on health issues, coupled with a lack of environmental discourse, illustrates the nuanced and highly politicized nature of milk consumption in U.S. schools, made even more complex during the Trump administration.
While milk demonstrates a relatively lower carbon footprint compared to some other animal proteins, like beef and pork, dairy farming still generates notable environmental challenges. Research from Pennsylvania State University highlights that a single dairy cow can emit approximately 350 pounds of methane annually, attributing 2.7 percent of total greenhouse gases in the U.S. to dairy cows.
In contrast, various plant-based milks, such as almond, oat, and rice options, typically have less environmental impact than traditional cow’s milk, requiring fewer resources for production and yielding lower emissions overall.
The NSLP, as currently structured, mandates that schools offer milk to secure federal reimbursements for meal costs. A nonprofit dedicated to animal welfare and environmental issues, the Center for a Humane Economy, denounces this policy as America’s “milk mandate.” In 2023, student Marielle Williamson initiated a lawsuit against her high school in Los Angeles after being prevented from promoting plant-based milk unless she also included dairy products in her advocacy. Critics argue that subsidized school lunch programs effectively serve as a “guaranteed market” for dairy farmers. This sentiment was echoed by Senator Amy Klobuchar during a Senate agricultural committee session, acknowledging the integral role of school meal programs in supporting local agriculture during turbulent times for farmers.
Supporters of the FISCAL Act argue for increased flexibility in school offerings to accommodate the needs of lactose-intolerant students. Milk consumption in the U.S. has steadily declined since the 1970s, a trend documented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, attributed to changing dietary preferences and the nation’s increasing diversity. Furthermore, approximately half of U.S. adults face challenges digesting lactose, with higher rates observed in various minority communities.
Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action, argues against the conventional notion of cow’s milk as “nature’s perfect food.” He acknowledges the dairy industry’s significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions but emphasizes that environmental arguments may not resonate with current legislative discussions. “The Republican Congress is not really so attuned to that,” he noted.
Consequently, advocates for the FISCAL Act are refraining from emphasizing the environmental aspects of milk consumption. This aligns with broader trends in the food industry, as stakeholders strategize to align their messaging with what resonates with leaders in the current political climate. Republican support for reinstating whole milk in schools often leans heavily on health narratives and economic arguments. For instance, Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas, during a recent Senate committee meeting while consuming a glass of milk, leveraged the phrase “Make America Healthy Again” to underline his position. This initiative resonates with various public concerns around wellness and safety, reflecting a shift towards more traditional food narratives.
While debates about the nutritional merits of whole and plant-based milks continue, an important environmental concern unifying advocates of both perspectives is food waste, a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Reports indicate that around 45 percent of milk cartons distributed during school breakfasts are discarded, with nearly a quarter of those unopened. Krista Byler, food service director for the Union City Area School District, reported an increase in milk consumption and a decrease in waste following the introduction of whole milk to her schools.
Both proponents of whole milk and supporters of the FISCAL Act contend that when students have access to a range of beverage options, they are more likely to engage with their beverages, thereby reducing waste. Recently, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Bill gained approval from a House agriculture committee. If it passes the full House, it may proceed to the Senate, while the FISCAL Act remains under discussion in both congressional chambers.
Pacelle expressed that the best opportunity for the FISCAL Act to advance lies in integrating its provisions as an amendment to the whole milk legislation. This collaborative framing would aim to broaden choices for students rather than positioning the two bills as opposing forces. “Moving it independently is unlikely because of the power of the dairy lobby,” he remarked, emphasizing the challenges posed by entrenched interests.
This story was produced by Grist and reprinted with permission.
Source
hechingerreport.org