forum: Campaigns and Community

Subscribe to forums RSS

#11 Sun 11 Mar 07 5:39am

Cindy

Forum champ
Occupation Registered Nurse
From Adelaide, OZ
Member since Tue 03 Aug 04

Re: Edinburgh headteacher vilified for banning junk.

Amber pamba, did you realise that 'low fat' milk or skimmer is just milk that has had water added.

    Likes (0)

#12 Sun 11 Mar 07 9:43pm

Goldberry

Member
Member since Tue 06 Feb 07

Re: Edinburgh headteacher vilified for banning junk.

Actually sadie-hoshi, low-fat milk has been "ultra-filtered"... this means the milk has been subjected to immense pressure.

Then because they have taken out the fat (which has vitamins and other goodies) they have to put artificial vitamins and calcium back in.

It's not the most natural substance you could drink, but it probably doesn't do you a lot of harm (?)

    Likes (0)

#13 Mon 12 Mar 07 9:27pm

Goldberry

Member
Member since Tue 06 Feb 07

Re: Edinburgh headteacher vilified for banning junk.

Edit: I just checked and found out that low-fat milk still has the calcium in it, so it does not need to be re-added.
Low-fat milk loses the Vitamins A, D and K, which are fat-soluble. Synthesised versions of these vitamins are therefore added to low-fat milk.

    Likes (0)

#14 Fri 16 Mar 07 7:10am

WaiferThinMint

Member
Occupation Student, Chef on the side
From Philadelphia, PA, USA
Member since Tue 22 Jun 04

Re: Edinburgh headteacher vilified for banning junk.

I might be wrong on this but I thought - I read it somewhere years ago - that skim and low fat milk are made through center fugal separation, not through high pressure division.

As for the comparative benefits of full fat milk, I believe that most of the data Goldberry cites is reliant upon the forced minimization of portion sizing that results from the richer texture of full fat milk.  Personally I prefer lighter textured beverages across the board, so I drink skimmed milk.  However, as I maintain portion control over that consumption, I find myself not to have any of the adverse affects mentioned.

As for the banning issue...there is that slippery slope difficulty.  Once you grant a government the authority to dictate what food is or is not acceptable you have severely lessened the recourse you might have had to fight them when they attempt to ban things which are not in and of themselves harmful : ie full fat milk.

As for making the remedy at home for government failings in their attempt to do good that is the best answer, and indeed the root of the larger problem.  When people cease to look at what they are eating, or outsource the task to a food industry - from fast food up to haute cuisine - they loose much of the control and benefit of home preparation.  If parents were more knowledgeable as to the food their children ate at home, and were more rigorous in enforcing healthy eating habits, then this whole mess never would have come to be.

    Likes (0)

#15 Thu 22 Mar 07 5:23am

tweal

Member
Member since Thu 22 Mar 07

Re: Edinburgh headteacher vilified for banning junk.

Congrats on holding your ground!  The next thing to get out of the schools is the soda pop machines...where did they come from anyway?

    Likes (0)

#16 Fri 23 Mar 07 1:51pm

Arran

Member
Member since Mon 26 Jun 06

Re: Edinburgh headteacher vilified for banning junk.

As for the comparative benefits of full fat milk, I believe that most of the data Goldberry cites is reliant upon the forced minimization of portion sizing that results from the richer texture of full fat milk.

The standard school measure in England is a third of a pint (or 189ml for those who insist on metric) supplied in an individual carton or bottle.

Most milk sold in England is homogenised.

    Likes (0)

#17 Fri 23 Mar 07 6:38pm

ellboy

Member
From ell's kitchen
Member since Mon 11 Apr 05

Re: Edinburgh headteacher vilified for banning junk.

our peadiatrician told us recently that from the age of 2 we should put the kids on semi-skimmed milk and from 5 on skimmed as hardening of the archeries has been shown to start that early on.

my question is has anyone read the labels?

the fat content of full-fat milk is about 5g per 100. compare this to butter, marge, cooking oils and so on and ask yourself just how much fat are my kids actually getting from their milk? and the answer is not a lot.

nevertheless i do agree that the calcium benefits are the same and consequently my kids drink semi-skimmed, but this is just another example of knee-jerk reactions to a minor issue when there are much more serious issues around like the chicken nugget and so on!

as for the original topic, sweets, why not ban them from schools? are there any benefits from sugary products to the school system? i say not, and the fool that wants to complain about it should be exiled to obesity island with the idiots that poke junk-food through the school fences.

el.

    Likes (0)

#18 Fri 23 Mar 07 9:11pm

mummza

Forum super champ
Occupation avoiding housework
From The land of song.
Member since Tue 04 Oct 05

Re: Edinburgh headteacher vilified for banning junk.

I use semi-skimmed milk, I realy do not like the 'watered down' taste of skimmed milk and I find that if only skimmed milk is avalible then I use twice the amount in my cup of tea ! lol

As for the Head teacher who has banned crisps, sweets fizzy drinks etc. , well I have to say that he is responible for the care of the children whilst they are in his school and it deffinatly does NOT harm a child to do without a packet of crisps or a chocolate biscuit for 6.5 hours of the day!
( and ... rather ' tounge in cheek'... I have to add that I did notice that the chubbier child in the photo was also clutching a 4 finger KitKat whilst the thinner child had a 2 finger KitKat!!!)

I help in a healthy eating school, the children drink water throuout the day amd the 'tuck shop'  at break time omly sells fruit.
We have just managed to obtain a small grant that will allow us to buy 2 liquidisers so that at least one day a week the tuck shop will also sell fruit smoothies.
The grant that we obtained also is to be used to purchase fruit as next week in school it is 'Fruit Awareness Week' . This is an initiative that was sorted out by one of the teachers and together with other staff ,every single child in the school will next week have time spent making fruit based 'dishes' and smoothies , the school lunch service is also joining in and have addapted their menu for the week to suit the schools program.
During the week every child in the school will have the oppertunity and be encouraged (but not forced!) to try different and  unusual fruits that they would normaly not eat.

We ran a similar week last school year but it was then based around vegetables. It was a great sucess , I expect next weeks 'Fruit Awareness Week' to share similar sucess.

So back to the head teacher banning foods such as sweets,crisps, chocolate biscuits and other such things.. no I do not think it is a wrong policy, as I sais , I am sure that any child can manage without such items for 6.5  hours a day!

    Likes (0)

#19 Sat 24 Mar 07 7:46pm

Anna

Forum champ
From Switzerland
Member since Fri 15 Apr 05

Re: Edinburgh headteacher vilified for banning junk.

I went to private schools, as did both my brother and sister, and sweets (particularly chocolate) were always banned from packed lunches.  It's not healthy, and anyway, the teachers shouldn't have to deal with hyperactive kids post-lunch time.  The first thing I noticed about the link is how both boys in the picture look as though they should have had chocolate banned several years ago.  It's infuriating how pig-headed these parents are being.  It's not nannying, it's responisibilty, commitment to your child's health and well-being, and pure common sense. 

Which unfortunately is not so common anymore, it seems.

    Likes (0)

#20 Mon 26 Mar 07 11:26pm

Goldberry

Member
Member since Tue 06 Feb 07

Re: Edinburgh headteacher vilified for banning junk.

ellboy, you are lucky if your milk has 5% fat - in New Zealand full fat milk is standardised at 3.3%, which is the same as what 100 years ago would have been called "skim milk" - you scoop or skim the cream off the top and you are left with milk containing 3.3% fat.

Yet even this so-called "whole milk" gets vilified.

As for kids' arteries getting hardened at the age of 2, well, how about we look at the actual *results* of drinking milk after 20 years. Studying 200,000 people, they found that the biggest milk-drinkers had the lowest incidence of heart disease and stroke, and had the lowest body weight. We are talking real full fat milk here, say 4% fat. See Prof. Elwood's comments:

***

2nd February 2007
My research on milk and health has focused on long-term cohort studies set up in a number of countries many years ago, when low-fat milk was seldom used and was unavailable in most areas, including Caerphilly in South Wales, the site of our own cohort study.  The disease outcomes we studied in relation to milk consumption were heart disease, stroke and the so-called 'metabolic syndrome', which is highly correlated with the later development of diabetes.

We found a negative relationship of each of these clinical outcomes with milk consumption - that is, the subjects who consumed the most milk had the lowest incidence of heart disease, stroke and metabolic syndrome.

We also noted that in virtually all the studies the subjects who consumed the most milk had a body weight (or BMI) that was lower than that of the subjects who consumed little or no milk.

I believe that milk is a natural and highly valuable food and its consumption should be encouraged - especially by children and adolescents.  Furthermore, the available evidence certainly does not justify any claim that fat-reduced milk is more 'healthy' and I therefore believe that there is no reason to deny full-fat milk to children, or to discourage its consumption.

I can supply references to research published in peer-reviewed medical journals to support each of the above statements.

Peter C Elwood DSc, MD, FRCP, FFPHM
Honorary Professor, College of Medicine, Cardiff
University, UK

***

ellboy wrote:

the fat content of full-fat milk is about 5g per 100. compare this to butter, marge, cooking oils and so on and ask yourself just how much fat are my kids actually getting from their milk? and the answer is not a lot.

el.

    Likes (0)

Powered by PunBB