Bill Would Ban Connecticut Childcare Providers From Serving Whole Milk
The bill is based more on some legislator's harebrained idea of how nutrition and diet work than any actual nutrition or dietary science.


A new bill making its way through the Connecticut legislature would ban daycare centers and home childcare providers from serving whole milk or 2% milk to the kids in their care. Setting aside for a moment the sheer lunacy of the proposed law's premise, I'd like to point out that it's also based on an incredibly faulty understanding of nutrition.
I rarely drink dairy, but when I do I reach for whole or 2% milk before skim or nonfat varieties. Whole milk is the least processed. Skim milk—you know, the "healthy" option everyone was supposed to switch to at some point in the 1990s—is made by separating and removing the fat from whole milk, which leaves the remaining product a shade of bluish-gray. To make it look palatable, and replace lost protein, milk powder is added back in, via a high-temp, high-pressure process that causes the cholesterol in skim milk to oxidize. Oxidized cholesterol is carcinogenic and has been shown in to promote arterial plaque formation. Oh, and because skimming the fat strips milk of crucial vitamins A and D, synthetic (i.e., less bioavailable) versions of these vitamins are added back into the milk—a sort of pointless procedure anyway, considering our bodies can't absorb these fat-soluble vitamins properly without fat.
Commercial whole milk, while still somewhat processed, is a lot closer to cow's milk in its natural state. No oxidized cholesterol, no need to dye it back to a natural-looking color or add synthetic vitamins. Yes, it has nearly double the calories of nonfat milk—150 per cup, compared to about 80 calories in a cup of skim. But calories aren't everything. Whole milk is richer in protein and fats, which promote satiety and fullness, and feeling full and satisfied longer makes people (including kids) less likely to overeat later.
That's not the only thing fats in milk are good for. They also help slow the release of sugars into the blood stream. Milk is actually more full of sugar than many people realize (in the form of lactose), so this is a helpful feature—almost as if the nutrients in milk naturally complement one another! And though the fat in milk is mostly the saturated kind, it's not necessarily the same type of fat you're getting from French fries and bacon. There are different types of saturated fats, which function different metabolically.
But enough biochemistry and abstraction—doesn't it just make sense that giving kids milk with less fat and less calories would help them avoid unhealthy weight gain? Well, good thing we have research looking at exactly this question in actual kids. A longitudinal Harvard study, published in 2005, found drinking skim or 1% milk was associated with weight gain in 9- to 14-year-olds, while drinking whole or 2% milk was not. A 2013 study found the same associations for pre-schoolers.
So in addition to infringing on personal liberty, the Connecticut bill—"An Act Concerning Nutrition Standards for Child Care Settings"—is based more on some legislator's harebrained idea of how nutrition and diet work than any actual nutrition or dietary science.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkxvIaKsFU
It is much too early for that.
On the other hand, it's not too early to visit Mace Windu's homeworld.
Aw.
This "duh" is better.
the Connecticut any bill?"An Act Concerning Nutrition Standards for Child Care Settings"?is based more on some legislator's harebrained idea of how nutrition and diet work than any actual facts or logic.
Fixed
children also need fats as they grow, including for brain development. They do not have the same nutritional issues as some furry-artery legislator. Speaking of which, has full fat or 2% milk been banned from the Connecticut Assembly? Thought not.
The "furry-artery" part reminds me of when I read about the scans of Egyptian mummies all showing nasty heat disease. They described their arteries as "furry." The thing is that the Egyptians lived like the AHA wants us to: Lot's of daily exercise, lots of whole grains in the diet, very lean meats, very little fats. Why then all the heart disease? Because it doesn't work.
But this time, THE RIGHT PEOPLE are in charge, so it'll work.
Of course. It's hot there.
Exactly. With the exception of morbidly obese Saudi Arabian 2-year-olds, infants and toddlers should never be put on a nutrition-restricted diet. They're still growing and need all that stuff.
hot damn HM, that kid looks like a shar pei
Advice: When a new mother is learning to nurse, and somebody at the hospital hands her a little piece of plastic that makes it easier for the baby to latch, do not use it, or get off of it as soon as the new mother is confident that she can nurse. It reduces the fat given to the child, and the baby may be perfectly happy but not gain enough weight.
My five-month-old is now gaining weight properly (and was alert, active, happy, and beating developmental milestones the whole time), so she's fine, but it would have been preferable if she and my wife didn't have to learn nursing again at four months.
(The NICU is not an easy place for mother and newborn to learn to nurse, as an aside.)
children also need fats as they grow, including for brain development.
If their brains develop, then they won't support central planing when they grow up.
Good of example of a legislative body that meets far too often and too long. They should all be sent home for the balance of the year for even considering this crap.
They want to collect more per deims for being so far from their home districts... most of which are less than an hour away.
30 years ago when the anti-smoking nannies were ramping up their campaign, there were objetors who said the next thing you know we'll have the government telling us what we can and cannot eat. Such people were roundly pooh-poohed by the "right-thinking", socially-conscious people.
Look who turned out to be right.
slippery slope... whee!
Show me a "right-thinking" socially-conscious person, and I'll show you someone who doesn't even pretend to be honest.
This bill must have obviously been proposed by anti-science Connecticut (!) Teathuglikkkans, then.
Whole Real milk is delicious. That other stuff tastes like crap.
Period; the end.
It's odd, but I've actually always preferred 1%. Can't stand milk fat. Grosses me out.
Have you tried reconstituted non-fat? Supposedly it's even better if you let it stand overnight in the refrigerator after reconstituting.
Stop flaunting your lactose-tolerant privilege.
And, avoid the plastic containers. They tend to give it a rather off taste.
Why would we want children to consume essential fatty acids? It's not like they need them.
So why are they essential then?
Big Tobacco.
But, but, but we must halt the epidemic of child obesity! It's spreading like an epidemic! It's contagious! We must ban things! That's how we help people! By banning things! It's for the children! Ban everything! For the children!
We tried to implement that 'ban everything' plan, but the first thing it banned was banning.
First they came for the banners, and I did not speak because I'm a naive libertarian traitor.
You don't have to support this nanny state legislation to recognize that this article is devoid of any actual biochemistry.
Non sequitur
It may be a non sequitur, but I understand what she is trying to say
Here you come with your "science" and your "evidence."
Not only is she right, but it's not even a non sequitur.
Hey look Warty is shooting his dicksucker off about shit he doesn't understand again.
It is a non sequitur. What she needed to write (or add) was "racemic".
Well, there's always this.
Morons. The Connecticut Legislature is full of Morons. Udder morons.
+2 (% milk)
The idea of governments ever passing legislation because the "science has spoken" is a very bad and scary idea.
I would think anyone who has peeked under the hood of peer-reviewed medical science would know this. But it gains ground every day.
http://www.helenezhill.com (my ex-boss)
The whole fucking POINT of drinking milk is to get the milk fat. Whole milk is the real thing.
-jcr
When did CT go full retard?
We prefer "Sensible, Common-Sense Assault Foods Legislation".
Sometime before the Whalers left.
Unbelievable. I'm sending the article to a friend who serves in the Ct. Legislature (minority party -GOP) to urge him to vote against.
It's Lysenkos all the way down.
The skim-milk lobby strikes again!
This chick and all her articles are steaming piles.