Increasing consumption of nutrient dense milk is a goal.
Real issues lost in coverage on dairy industry labeling initiative
By Bob Wheatley
This post is about what really matters. We know childhood obesity is a problem. We know that improved nutrition and fitness can now be linked to better performances and cognitive benefits for kids at school. And we also know that milk is a nutrient dense beverage option and that among various not-so-good-for-you choices — we would prefer kids get more of, not less.
So today’s Chicago Tribune piece on the dairy industry’s move to bring new non-sugar sweetening options to flavored milk, while a laudable piece of reporting if for no other reason than covering off all of the major stakeholders in the debate, fails to land on the primary objective: improved nutrition outcomes for children.
The controversy centered on whether or not the milk carton should have messaging on the front of the label about reduced calories, rather than letting the ingredient change exist on the nutrition label around back. The dairy industry’s concern: telegraphing the reduced calorie message may prompt kids to avoid it. Hence the primary objective of getting more nutrients into kids bodies is negated on a technicality.
This concern is a real one. We have ample evidence that human beings when confronted with the perception of “sensible choice,” often perceive its no longer a pleasurable choice from a taste standpoint, and so it’s not selected. Taste matters. It always has. Always will. So is the end goal of better nutrition consumption served by flagging a statement that kids may shrink away from? Perhaps not.
Kids often prefer flavored varieties of milk, period. The goal is to reduce sugar grams in flavored varieties. New sweetening technologies now exist for this purpose such as monk fruit and stevia, which are natural options. Over the last few years as the debate over flavored milk has reached its zenith around the nation, the dairy industry has been working to adjust the nutritionals.
Meanwhile schools try taking flavored varieties out to help address concerns about too much sugar. That’s a reasonable goal. However, evidence abounds once the flavored versions leave the lunch room, consumption sinks faster than Apple’s stock after a bad earnings report.
I can attest to this: at a meeting with school nutrition officials in Mountain View, California, where my client Jamba Juice had an installation of their JambaGO beverage program (all fruit smoothies with no added sugars), I asked them how their milk program was going. “Not so good” was the response and the story following underlined to ongoing debate around flavored milk.
I asked the nutrition director if they had tried selling white milk alone and taking flavored varieties out in an attempt to address the sugar concerns voiced by parents, teachers and other dietary experts. “Yes we did and consumption fell by over 30 percent almost immediately.”
In a recent study we posted about recently from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health we learned that parents are challenged trying to get their kids to eat healthier during the time of day when they have most influence over choices: from after school to bed time. The study showed that kids routinely consume foods and beverages that can add unhealthy weight gain despite parents stated preferences for healthier options. One of the primary drivers of preference for less healthy snacks and drinks? Taste.
The story however serves as a reminder that nutrition, ingrdients, labeling issues and consumption of items like sugar will remain a center of heated debate.
Solutions that respect the taste issues while helping create access and consumption of more nutritionally sound foods and beverages represent one of the biggest, most substantial calls to action for the entire food and beverage industry.
Addition by subtraction or addition by addition?
For years we have viewed nutrition improvements through the lens of shaving a bit of the bad things off, be it calories, fat, sugar or sodium. And in many cases the resulting taste deficits have helped educate consumers that the subtraction isn’t pleasurable. The result quite predictable: after early trial these products go extinct.
Imagine if you will products that add value by virtue of their nutrient density, what you get in the calories you’re consuming. Formulations that are naturally lower in calories or fat for example, but taste as good or better than the full fat versions. Protein is a great example of addition by addition: added protein delivers energy and fullness (satiety) that can be useful for weight management.
Gee did I just talk about milk…?
What’s your take on this?