Some believe that banning the flavored drink will cause some students to stop drinking milk altogether. The Board of Education is also divided over the redrawing of political district lines.
By Paul Sisolak / Special to The Malibu Times
The fate of flavored milk in local schools was left undecided last week, as the Board of Education ended its meeting Wednesday divided over whether to ban the drink from lunchroom menus for good.
Polarized by claims that it contains added sugar and empty calories, apart from the dairy product’s inherent nutritional value, Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board members remained split, 3-3, with Vice President Ben Allen abstaining, over the proposed milk ban. The board will address the ban once more at its Aug. 24 meeting.
Board members decided to pursue the issue further after hearing testimonies from outspoken parents and presentations from health professionals over flavored milk’s alleged contributions to childhood obesity and diabetes, despite its place as a drink fortified with vitamins and calcium.
“The popular thought that chocolate milk makes kids fat and has no place in schools needs to be addressed,” said Dona Richwine, a nutrition specialist with SMMUSD. “The hope is if you remove [flavoring from] milk to reduce the added sugar, kids will choose nonflavored milk.”
Richwine said the World Health Organization recommends that no more than 10 percent of a child’s total daily caloric intake come from added sugar. But Richwine and Orlando Griego, the district’s director of food and nutrition services, say the flavored milk in school cafeterias contains up to two teaspoons more sugar than its traditional white counterpart.
Coupled with the fact that 77 percent of the 440,861 cartons of milk sold last year in Santa Monica/Malibu schools was flavored, some parents at the meeting expressed near outrage at the district’s nutritional offerings to its students. Chocolate milk was the culprit at Wednesday’s meeting, as strawberry milk, Griego said, ceased being sold years ago. Flavored milk, he said, has been sold through the SMMUSD since the early 1980s.
“Kids need to be given healthy options to be able to make healthy choices. We feel they’re not doing that at the moment,” parent Chris Goddard said. “The sugary options are only going to hurt them now and in the long run.”
Goddard cited 48 school districts nationwide that have implemented bans on flavored milk, including the Los Angeles Unified School District last month.
“It [flavored milk] is a lot of empty calories with little nutritional value,” Morris Salem, a doctor, said.
Griego said he surveyed 62 school districts across the country, half of which responded that they have no plans to discontinue serving flavored milk to children. Eight districts are planning their own bans.
But Board President Jose Escarce pointed out that part of the district’s study found that students in schools across the country stopped drinking milk altogether when their menu options were taken away. Escarce, who also spoke to the positive aspects of milk in developing strong bone density in children, said the health benefits of drinking milk outweigh the need to ban its flavored alternative.
“Given the data we’ve heard, it isn’t worth it,” he said.
Board members Maria Leon-Vazquez and Laurie Lieberman sided with Escarce and say they believe a complete ban of flavored milk in Santa Monica and Malibu schools may be too extreme. They called for finding alternatives.
“It’s a matter of moderation and looking at the whole picture,” Leon-Vazquez said.
Lieberman said the district’s focus should be on raising awareness in children to the detriments of other unhealthy options like soda, or fried junk food.
“Does getting rid of chocolate milk really get at the core of those issues, or does it create other issues inadvertently?” she asked. “I really feel like flavored milk is not where the focus should be.”
However, Board member Oscar de la Torre said he believes the ban on flavored milk helps raise awareness about unhealthful foods.
“I think if you eliminate it, there’s more good that will come from it,” he said.
Board members Ralph Mechur and Nimish Patel also fell in line with De la Torre’s opinion; board member Allen cast his abstention because he felt that more research was needed.
Redistricting issue splits board members
Board members Allen and Mechur also took different sides over an official SMMUSD letter expressing concern about a proposed redrawing of senatorial voting boundaries.
Superintendent Sandra Lyon had instructed district staff to craft the letter to the Citizens Redistricting Committee, warning committee members that a redesign of Senate lines could split Santa Monica and Malibu in two, and harm the school district. She said it would ignore geographic integrity and community interests.
“The proposed Senate district does neither, and will, in fact, divide a united community and create unnecessary governing obstacles that could dramatically impact the education of our children,” Lyon said.
Mechur said after the meeting that a redistricting could hamper future educational changes within the school district.
“I think it’s important for us to be one school district in our voting districts,” he said. “We are two communities that need to effectively communicate between ourselves. It would be detrimental if we had separate conversations with different senators or state assembly people.”
Board member Allen also said he held off from voting on the letter because he felt it overstated the problem to a greater extent than it might be.
“I see the advantages [of redistricting],” he said. “I just don’t think the disadvantages are as enormous as some people think.”
Should the committee redraw local Senate lines, Allen said the school district would find a proactive way to work with the changes.
“We’ve been around for a long time and we’ve worked with many different legislators on many levels,” he said. “We’d just have to work hard to build relationships with two legislators instead of one. We can work around it.”
The California Citizens Redistricting Committee is due to meet again this week.