Should chocolate milk be served in schools?
Debate Rounds (5)
teaspoons (64 calories) of added sugar.
Industry claims that beginning this school year chocolate milk will average 2.5
teaspoons (40 calories) of added sugar.2
Milk always has 12 grams (about 3
tsp) of its natural sugar, lactose.*
If a child drinks flavored milk at breakfast and lunch they are
getting 5-8 teaspoons of added sugar, 80-128 extra calories,
An 8oz serving size of Coca-Cola has just under 7 teaspoons of sugar.
Over a 180-day school year, that adds up to almost 8 pounds
of unnecessary sugar (and at least 14,400 calories!). Imagine if they drank it all 365 days"
Chocolate and flavoured milk have been shown to be more preferable in kids and teenagers than plain white milk. As a current middle school student, chocolate milk is almost all gone by the time I get my place in the lunch line, while piles of plain milk cartons lie lonely on the counter. Think about what this means for school profit! The cartons of chocolate milk sold to students paying for lunch work wonders for my school. Money spent on milk is spent on new library books, new computers, and new lockers. And it's not just my school- flavoured milk accounts for 70% of the milk sold U.S. schools! A complete ban on chocolate milk would drastically decrease the number of children that drink milk daily in America.
The American Heart Association has also noted that chocolate milk has no adverse effects on a child"s weight. And from the amount of chocolate milk sold daily in the United States, chocolate and flavoured milk drinkers drink more milk than those that drink plain milk. Studies by the American Dietetic Association also back up this claim.
School districts buy a lot of flavoured and plain milk from dairy companies, and due to complaints by parents, have proceeded to reduce the sugar put into their chocolate milk. In 2010, the Fairfax School District (the 11th largest district in America) stopped offering flavoured milk altogether. But due to the loss in buying noticed by the dairy companies, they decided to cut down on the sugar to attract more school district customers. Their new milk had 22 grams of sugar, 20% less than the original. The Fairfax school district adopted flavoured milk again in 2011. San Francisco public schools, like mine, have also gotten a chocolate milk with less sugar. If school districts like these can use their consumer power to lessen sugar in their students' diet, every single district in America can as well.
In conclusion, chocolate milk is a favourite among American children. The money students spend on it helps fund schools and improve education, and it has no effect on the weight of a child. School districts have been taking successful steps to decrease sugar content. A complete ban on this alternative hurts children, both in health and in happiness.
Chocolate milk accounts for 76 percent of the milk the system cells, according to a breakdown from the system's nutrition program. The chocolate milk affects the human body in lots of different ways. The milk is similar to chocolate and chocolate is very bad for your health. Your health is NUMBER 1. The chocolate milk can also break down several cells in your body.
I am now waiting for your answer.
"The milk is similar to chocolate and chocolate is very bad for your health." This rather irks me. On the contrary, chocolate can benefit you in many ways. Swedish studies and HealthDay magazine have proved that two chocolate bars per week lowers the risk of stroke in women by 20%. The American Academy of Neurology also has analysed that eating a Hershey's chocolate bat once per week reduces stroke risk by 22% out of a study of over 44,000 participants. A 2008 Harvard study showed that chocolate eaters showed improved blood flow to the brain. Finally, cocoa found in chocolate contains a compound called pentameric procyanidin which disrupts cancer cells" ability to spread, proven by a 2005 study by Georgetown University.
These studies and discoveries have verified that chocolate is good for the body, and from that, chocolate milk should continue to be served in schools.
What do you say?
Public health professionals are concerned about sugary beverages because of sugar's known link to obesity. Yes, children should get plenty of outdoor physical activity and maintain an overall healthy diet. Although many children do those things, the effects of sugar are powerful. Several studies have shown a link from added sugar to obesity that is independent of the rest of the diet and the child's physical activity. The plain fact is sugar leads to obesity.
Rates of overweight children and obesity have doubled in the last two decades, so that now nearly one child out of two is either overweight or obese. This has real and damaging health consequences. Those with the misfortune to become overweight or obese as children are far more likely to be overweight or obese as adults, to develop hypertension, diabetes, pulmonary problems, bone and joint issues, and premature cardiovascular disease. These problems in turn consign their victims to a future that is not only difficult but short. Largely because of the pandemic of obesity, this generation of children may be the first in our nation's history to have a shorter life span than their parents.
Responding to the threat of obesity and sugar's role in it, the American Heart Assn. and the American Assn. of Pediatrics recommend limiting the intake of sugary beverages. Too many school systems have proved themselves unreliable partners in following these guidelines.
Santa Monica schools offer chocolate milk in addition to skim milk. Compared with soda pop or even water, milk offers substantial nutritional advantages. Milk contains vitamins, minerals, protein and, of course, calcium, in which up to two-thirds of American children are deficient. The choice between milk and soda is clear. For the same reasons, plain milk is more healthful than sugared milk.
Some on the school board believe that the elimination of sugared milk will lead to a reduction in calcium intake. They fear that children will not drink milk if it doesn't contain added sugar. Their fears are not entirely unreasonable. A recent study conducted by the milk-processing industry that adds sugar to milk claims that when sugary milk is not available, overall milk consumption drops by as much as 35%. Though the methodology and objectivity of this study have been questioned, it certainly raises the stakes for eliminating sugar.
These stakes are raised even higher by the structure of lunch reimbursements, an ironic, if unwitting ally of sugar's place on the menu. When schools distribute lunches, the federal government reimburses them only if the lunch includes a certain number of nutritious items, defined to include milk, whether sugared or not. If a child declines the milk and doesn't choose enough of the offered items to meet the target, the school is not reimbursed. This can add up to a substantial loss to the district.
Go to http://www.thedenverchannel.com...-
savesealpups forfeited this round.
savesealpups forfeited this round.
savesealpups forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: F/F. I'll think twice about drinking chocolate milk!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.