The Instigator
QT
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Waater
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,447 times Debate No: 17084
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

QT

Pro

Resolved: The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk

Definitions:

School board: A local board or committee in charge of public education

Right: In accordance with what is good, proper, or just

Ban: To prohibit

Round one will only be for acceptance.
Waater

Con

I accept. I await Pro's contentions.
Debate Round No. 1
QT

Pro

The Los Angeles Unified School District is taking a stand against child obesity by banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk. In the past few years, schools in the District of Columbia, Boulder Valley, Colorado, and Berkeley, California have also banned flavored milk.


The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk (1). These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever.


Children under the age of 9 should not take in more than 120 empty calories a day (2). By drinking a carton of chocolate milk, young children are consuming nearly 50% of this daily limit. For this reason, the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity strongly discourages serving flavored milk (3).


Opponents of banning flavored milk argue that all flavors of milk contain the same quantities of important nutrients. While this is true, children will absorb more of these nutrients if they choose to drink plain milk as opposed to chocolate milk. Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. One study found that a single 100 gram dose of dark chocolate increased calcium excretion by 147% (4). According to another study, “Higher frequency of chocolate consumption is linearly related to lower bone density and strength” (5).


Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so (6). Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods (7).


Based on these conclusions, students who drink plain milk on a regular basis should develop less of a preference for chocolate milk. This has several important implications for schools. Administrators may feel that it makes sense to serve chocolate milk to increase children’s initial acceptance of milk. However, this strategy will actually result in decreased long-term acceptance of unsweetened foods, including white milk.


Conclusion:


Our society has a responsibility to help students develop healthy eating habits. Banning flavored milk in our schools is an excellent way to accomplish this task.


References:

  1. http://www.cdc.gov...
  2. http://www.choosemyplate.gov...
  3. http://yaleruddcenter.org...
  4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
  5. http://www.ajcn.org...
  6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
  7. http://www.yaleruddcenter.org...
Waater

Con

I'd like to apologize for my lateness. I didn't have a lot of time to write this up, but, I assure you, next round I'll be completely focused. Thank you for being patient.

"The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk. These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever."

A 2005 study by the New York City (NYC) Department of Education found that by removing whole milk and replacing it with low-fat to fat-free chocolate milk, students were served an estimated 5,960 fewer calories and 619 fewer grams of fat per year.(1)

"Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. "

�It is present in small enough amounts that the effect on calcium absorption is negligible(2)(3). �As chocolate contains relatively small amounts of oxalate, it is unclear to what extent chocolate consumption affects healthy people who eat calcium-rich diets.

"Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so. Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods."

Of course, not everyone likes plain milk(4), so by only offering plain milk you're depriving a certain amount of kids their calcium.�Flavoring milk �is the only way to get students to drink it. Milk provides a host of nutrients, including calcium, protein and vitamin D, which recent studies show is deficient in about three-quarters of teenagers and adults.
To simply claim that, under verbal prompts, students will defy their taste buds is ridiculous. The experiment given here is invalid.

"It's better for them to have some milk with some flavoring and a little added sugar than to go without milk," said Ms. Pratt-Heavner, whose organization last month helped release a study that showed that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed.

Conclusions:
While chocolate milk isn't exactly on par with non-flavored milk in terms of calories, the benefits still outweigh the costs by drinking chocolate milk. There are some students who simply won't drink plain milk, and prefer flavored milk instead. What about those students? Won't someone think of the children?

Sources:
1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

2.�http://www.ivillage.com...

3.http://www.mayoclinic.com...

4.http://www.facebook.com...
Debate Round No. 2
QT

Pro

Kids who drink plain milk will indeed absorb more calcium than those who drink chocolate milk:

According to my opponent’s link, a child who consumes one carton of plain milk will absorb 6 more milligrams of calcium than a child who consumes a carton of chocolate milk. This difference may be insignificant in the short-term; however, it can make a big difference in the long run. If a student drinks a carton of plain milk every day, he or she will absorb an additional 2,190 milligrams of calcium every year.


Banning flavored milk will not decrease overall milk consumption in the long-term:

My opponent mentioned a study which found that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. As it turns out, this study was funded by the Milk Processor Education Program (MPEP), the dairy industry’s national marketing group (1). The MPEP has spent over a million dollars to promote chocolate milk in schools. As extensive research has shown, the conclusions of a scientific study usually support the interests of the study's financial sponsor (2-3). Therefore, the results of this research article should not be weighted heavily.

When we consider only objective research, we realize that banning flavored milk will not lead to decreased consumption in the long-term. For example, let’s examine the implications of limiting the availability of flavored milk in New York City schools. Beginning in 2006, flavored milk could be purchased only three days a week (4). In this year, most NYC schools also stopped serving whole milk.

Initially, there was an 8% decline in milk purchases following the implementation of these new policies. Several students were probably not accustomed to drinking low-fat, plain milk. As a result, some kids may have initially avoided drinking milk altogether. However, by 2009, milk purchases had actually increased by 1.3% (4). This proves that children will eventually learn to accept unsweetened, low-fat foods.

As Dr. Marlene Schwartz concluded, “It is probable that, immediately following removal of flavored milk from schools, children will drink less milk. Who really is surprised that, given the option, children prefer the taste of flavored milk to unflavored milk? Research with both animals and humans show that we all like the taste of sugar. However, examining what happens in the short-term is inadequate; the relevant question is what happens in the long-term when children are only served unflavored milk” (5).


Conclusion:

By serving our children flavored milk, we’re only training them to prefer, and eventually over-consume, sugar-sweetened beverages. Scientific studies show that banning flavored milk does not decrease overall milk consumption. Thus, all of our schools should stop serving flavored milk.

I urge everyone to vote pro!

References:


(1) http://yaleruddcenter.org...
(2) http://www.bmj.com...

(3) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
(4) http://journals.lww.com...
(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Waater

Con

Waater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
QT

Pro

By allowing our students to drink flavored milk, we're only training them to prefer sweetened foods. This can have devastating consequences, especially later in life.

I urge everybody to vote pro!

Waater

Con

Waater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Waater 6 years ago
Waater
Sigh...
Conduct points to pro for forfeit.
Posted by Waater 6 years ago
Waater
Last-minute post again. See you then!
Posted by QT 6 years ago
QT
Sorry, I'll probably post my argument later than I originally intended.
Posted by QT 6 years ago
QT
I should post my argument sometime tomorrow. Probably around 5:00 central time.
Posted by Waater 6 years ago
Waater
I promise, next round I'll be all over this. So disorganized and choppy I was.
Posted by QT 6 years ago
QT
Great!
Posted by Waater 6 years ago
Waater
Will post within the day! Maybe!
Posted by Waater 6 years ago
Waater
Let's see what you got. Wish you didn't make the voting period last indefinitely, though.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
QTWaaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet. Tough case for Pro, I loved chocolate milk and can not imagine my school years without it! But Pro argued well.