Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1147. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair,…
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1147.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1147. It is Christmastime across America. For many, the season brings with it the annual return of cherished Christmas traditions, such as leaving milk and cookies out for Santa Claus and his reindeer to enjoy.
As for my family, our traditional choice of dairy has always been whole milk. We want only the most nutritious option for Santa.
The nutrients in whole milk, like protein, calcium, and vitamin D, provide the fuel Santa needs to travel the whole globe in one night. Whole milk is the unsung hero of his Christmas journey.
Protein helps build and repair Santa's muscles. Hoisting heavy sacks of gifts up and down the chimney is no easy task.
Calcium is vital for strong bones. It is calcium that keeps Santa strong and sturdy as he dashes from rooftop to rooftop.
Vitamin D is essential to a strong immune system. Santa absolutely needs one as he braves the cold, wintry night. You see, it is not just the magic of the season that helps Santa deliver presents worldwide, it is also the fortifying nutrients in whole milk.
Reflecting on Christmas traditions this year begs the question: If whole milk is a good option to fuel Santa's extraordinary Christmas Eve journey, then why isn't it an option for American schoolchildren in their lunchrooms?
That is why I support Representative G.T. Thompson's Whole Milk For Healthy Kids Act, a bill allowing unflavored and flavored whole milk to be offered in school cafeterias.
Since 2012, the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program has allowed only low-fat and fat-free milk options for American schoolchildren. This means 2 percent and whole milk have been excluded from the daily diets of an entire generation of kids.
The USDA intends to finalize another rule which will further limit milk options. Anti-milk advocates advance one main argument against whole milk: that whole milk is bad for kids.
Rather, milk has 13 essential nutrients that are needed for children to live healthy lives and succeed in school. It is an essential ingredient to growth and development. Research shows that whole milk is associated with a neutral or lower risk of heart disease and obesity.
Moreover, the USDA contradicts itself by limiting milk options for young children. On one hand, it recognizes that children are at risk of underconsuming dairy, yet on the other, it creates policies that will only exacerbate the problem.
If Americans have learned anything from these past 3 years, it is that scientific authorities tend to contradict themselves. The truth is that whole milk is a significant source of vital nutrients for children's growth and development. The Federal bureaucracy should never stand between your children and a nutritious lunch.
The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act isn't about advocating for one type of milk over another. It is about providing parents, schools, and food service providers with the option to choose what is best for our children's nutrition.
This act does not aim to diminish the importance of other milk varieties. Rather, it seeks to restore the availability of a wholesome, natural option that has been a staple for generations. This bill is about choice. It is a chance to empower parents and schools to make informed choices about what goes into our children's diets.
Whether it is a nutritional foundation for Santa's journey or your child's math homework, let's not discount the benefits of whole milk.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I would just like to tell my colleague something that I think will be easy to remember about why we are doing this. Scientists/experts built the Titanic, and amateurs built the ark.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, we are very concerned about waste. One of the reasons there is so much waste is because whole milk is not allowed, and children don't like the taste of skim milk.
We are putting children first. We are not excluding soy drink. It is not milk. It is a plant-based food. It isn't milk, so you can't call it soy milk. You can call it soy drink.
It was under our first African-American President in this country that this was designed this way. The First Lady pushed through these rules and regulations to exclude whole milk, which, by the way, my colleague says has an enormous amount more fat.
The fat content of whole milk is about 3\1/2\ percent. We are foisting on children 1\1/2\ percent milk, which doesn't have a very good taste to many of them. We are excluding them from 3\1/2\ percent. We do not exclude soy drink. This is about inclusion and equity. We want people to be able to drink the kind of milk they want to drink.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the author of this legislation.
Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), who is the vice chair of the Education and the Workforce Committee.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two scientific articles.
[From the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy]
Dairy Foods, Obesity, and Metabolic Health: The Role of the Food Matrix
Compared with Single Nutrients
(By Dariush Mozaffarian)
Introduction
Conventional dietary guidelines from around the globe have
focused on individual nutrients to maintain and improve
health and prevent disease. This is due to the historical
focus, developed in the last century, on single nutrients in
relation to clinical nutrient deficiency diseases. However,
this reductionist approach is inappropriate for translation
to chronic diseases.
A look back at the history of modern nutrition science
provides important perspectives on the origins of the
reductionist approach to nutrition. In 1747, the British
sailor and physician James Lind tested whether citrus fruits
prevented scurvy, but it was not until 1932 that vitamin C
was actually isolated, synthesized, and proven to be the
relevant ingredient. The period of the 1930s to 1950s was a
golden era of vitamin discovery, when all the major vitamins
were identified, isolated, and synthesized, and shown to be
the active constituents of foods relevant for nutrient
deficiency diseases such as pellagra (niacin), beriberi
(thiamine), rickets (vitamin D), and night blindness (vitamin
A). This scientific focus on nutrient deficiencies coincided
with global geopolitics, in particular the Great Depression
and World War II, which accentuated concerns about
insufficient food and nutrients. For example, the birth of
RDAs was at the National Nutrition Conference on Defense in
1941, which focused on identifying the individual nutrients
needed to prevent nutrient deficiencies in order to have a
population ready for war. Together, these scientific and
historical events led to the concept of food as a delivery
system for calories and specific isolated nutrients.
It was not until the 1980s that modern nutrition science
began to meaningfully consider nutrition in association with
chronic diseases, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes,
cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer. Intuitively, the
reductionist paradigm that had been so successful in reducing
the prevalence of nutrient deficiency diseases was extended
to chronic diseases. Thus, saturated fat became ``the'' cause
of heart disease, whereas now, excess calories and fat are
``the'' causes of obesity.
What recent advances in nutrition science have
demonstrated, however, is that although a single-nutrient
focus works well for prevention of deficiency diseases, such
as scurvy or beriberi, this approach generally fails for
chronic diseases such as coronary artery disease (CAD),
stroke, type 2 diabetes, or obesity. For such complex
conditions, the focus should be on foods.
Calories in/Calories out
The US obesity epidemic is a recent phenomenon, starting in
the mid-1980s, and the rise of obesity globally is even more
recent. The strategies to address this epidemic have not yet
caught up with advances in nutrition science. Most current
dietary recommendations and policies across the globe remain
calorie and fat focused, recommending foods based on these
reductionist metrics rather than their complex, empirically
determined effects on health. For example, nearly all
guidelines recommend low-fat or nonfat dairy foods to reduce
calories, total fat, and saturated fat in the diet, based on
the theory that this will help maintain a healthy weight and
reduce the risk of CVD. This is seen, for example, in the
2015-2020 US Dietary Guidelines; National School Lunch
Program, NIH Dietary Guidelines for Kids; and CDC Diabetes
Prevention Program.
However, foods are not simply a collection of individual
components, such as fat and calories, but complex matrices
that have correspondingly complex effects on health and
disease. Recommendations based on calorie or fat contents
fail to consider the complex effects of different foods,
independent of their calories, on the body's multiple,
redundant mechanisms for weight control, from the brain to
the liver, the microbiome, and hormonal and metabolic
responses. This growing evidence indicates that different
foods, calorie-for-calorie, have different effects on the
risk of long-term weight gain and success of weight
maintenance.
Dairy Foods and Weight
Although dairy products contribute cents10
percent of all calories in the US diet, until recently,
little direct research had evaluated the health effects of
different dairy foods. The complex ingredients and matrices
of different dairy foods, from milk to yogurt to cheese,
appear to have varying effects on weight.
Although considerable research has focused on optimal diets
for weight loss among obese individuals (secondary
prevention), fewer studies have evaluated determinants of
gradual weight gain (primary prevention). Among nonobese US
adults, the average weight gain is centslb (0.45
kg) per year. This represents a very slow, modest increment,
but when sustained over many years, this small annual weight
gain drives the obesity epidemic. This gradual pace also
makes it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to
identify specific causes or remedies.
To identify specific dietary factors associated with long-
term weight gain, we performed prospective investigations
among 3 separate cohorts that included 120,877 US men and
women who were free of chronic disease and not obese at
baseline. We examined weight gain every 4 y, for up to 24 y
of follow-up, and its association with the increased intake
of individual foods. Within each 4-y period, participants
gained an average of 3.35 lb. On the basis of increased daily
servings of different foods, those strongly linked to weight
gain were generally carbohydrate-rich, including potato chips
(per daily serving, 1.69 lb greater weight gain every 4 y),
other potatoes/fries (1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages
(1.00 lb), sweets (0.65 lb), and refined grains (0.56 lb).
Other foods were not linked to weight gain, even when then
intake was increased, including cheese, low-fat milk, and
whole milk. Other foods were actually related to less weight
gain: the more they were consumed, the less weight was
gained. This included vegetables (-0.22 lb), whole grains
(-0.37 lb), fruits (-0.49 lb), nuts (-0.57 lb), and yogurt
(-0.82 lb) When sweetened vs. plain yogurt were evaluated,
each was associated with relative weight loss, although when
sweetened, about half the benefit was lost.
What could explain these findings? We hypothesize that
different foods have varying effects on multiple redundant
mechanisms for weight gain, including effects on hunger and
fullness, glucose, insulin and other hormonal responses, de
novo fat synthesis by the liver, gut microbiome responses;
and the body's metabolic rate.
Based on these findings, certain foods, when consumed over
the long term can have relatively neutral effects on weight,
others promote weight gain, whereas still others promote
weight loss.
Interestingly, although we found that cheese, low-fat milk,
and whole-fat milk were each unassociated with weight change,
there is evidence that dairy foods may promote healthier body
composition. Consistent with our findings, a systematic
review and meta-analysts of 37 randomized clinical trials
with 184,802 participants, which assessed the effect of dairy
consumption on weight and body composition, found that
overall, dairy consumption had little effect on BMI. Body
composition, however, changed significantly. Dairy
consumption led to a reduction in fat mass (0.23 kg) and an
increase in lean body mass (0.37 kg). Overall, high-dairy
intervention increased body weight (0.01, 95 percent CI:
-0.25, 0.26), and lean mass (0.37, 95 percent CI: 0.11,
0.62); decreased body fat (-0.23, 95 percent CI: -0.48, 0.02)
and waist circumference (-1.37 95 percent CI: -2.28, -0.46).
In subgroup analyses, such effects appeared larger in
trials also having energy restriction, but such subgroup
findings should be interpreted cautiously The types and
frequency of dairy products consumed varied among these
trials, making it difficult to make distinctions in this
meta-analysis about the effects of different types of dairy
products such as low-fat or whole fat, or milk, yogurt, or
cheese. When viewed in combination with our long-term
observational findings, the joint results suggest that dairy
foods do not promote weight gain, that dairy consumption may
reduce body fat and augment muscle mass, and that the type of
dairy product (milk compared with cheese compared with
yogurt) may be more important for preventing long-term weight
gain than the dairy fat content.
Dairy Foods, Probiotics, and the Microbiome
Many pathways appear relevant to the concept that foods
cannot be judged on calorie content alone for risk of
obesity. Among these, the gut microbiome is particularly
interesting. Substantial evidence demonstrates that the
quality of the diet strongly influences the gut microbiome.
Among different factors, probiotics have been studied for
their effect on the microbiome; as well as potential benefits
of fermented foods, which may be greater than the sum of
their individual microbial, nutritive, or bioactive
components.
For example, in an experimental model, mice genetically
predisposed to obesity were provided control diets or a
``fast-food'' chow with and without probiotic-containing
yogurt or a single probiotic (Lactobacillus reuteri) in
water. Without probiotics, mice on the fast-food chow gained
significant weight. However, the addition of either
probiotic-containing yogurt or water prevented this weight
gain. Crucially, the probiotics did not appear to reduce the
amount of calories consumed; rather, the benefits appeared
related to changes in microbiome function and inflammatory
pathways. The results support weight benefits of probiotics
and, more importantly, provide empiric evidence that
challenges the widely accepted conventional wisdom that
the effects of different foods on obesity depend largely
on their calories.
Consistent with this animal experiment, a recent systematic
review and meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials
examined the effects of probiotics, either in foods or as
supplements, on body weight and composition in overweight and
obese subjects. Administration of probiotics significantly
reduced body weight percent (-0.60 kg), BMI (-0.27 kg/m\2\),
and fat percentage (0.60 percent), compared with placebo. A
separate meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
demonstrated that consumption of probiotics in foods or
supplements significantly improves blood glucose, insulin,
and insulin resistance. The trials in these two meta-analyses
were neither long-term nor large--in all, a total of about
1,000 subjects were included in each meta-analysis, with
trial durations ranging from 3 to 24 wk and with varying
designs in terms of controls, disease conditions, and
composition of probiotic preparations evaluated. Nonetheless,
together with observational and experimental evidence, these
studies provide compelling evidence to support weight and
metabolic benefits of foods rich in probiotics.
Dairy Foods, CVD, and Diabetes
Although an important risk factor for type 2 diabetes and
CVD, growing research suggests that specific foods may also
directly alter disease risk. In a meta-analysis of 29
prospective cohort studies including 938,465 participants who
experienced 93,158 deaths, 28,419 incident CAD events, and
25,416 incident CVD events, neither total dairy nor milk
consumption was significantly associated with total
mortality, CAD, or CVD. Notably, findings were similar when
total whole-fat dairy, or low-fat dairy were separately
evaluated. In contrast, the intake of fermented dairy
products (predominantly cheese, plus yogurt and fermented
milk) was associated with modestly lower risk of total
mortality and CVD, with about 5 percent lower risk of each
per 50 g daily serving. In addition, the consumption of
cheese alone, the dairy product with the highest amount of
dairy fat, was associated with a significantly lower risk of
both CAD and stroke.
In the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis cohort,
including 5209US adults with Caucasian, Asian, black, and
Hispanic backgrounds, different food sources of saturated fat
were analyzed for their relation with subsequent CVD risk,
adjusted for sociodemographics, medical history, and other
dietary and lifestyle factors. A higher intake of saturated
fat from dairy sources was associated with significantly
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), who is my classmate.
Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Chair, we are waiting for one more speaker to come, so I will yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate some points that were made before. We are not being driven by any special interest group lobby. We are being driven by the special interest group of children. We want children in school to have access to whole milk, which, as my colleagues have pointed out, is 96.75 percent fat-free, but it provides one of the most nutritious meals that children can have.
We are seeing tremendous waste in the schools. We are not excluding soy drink. The policy that we are trying to overcome here by providing whole milk to children was a policy passed under the Obama administration. We are not trying to harm minorities in any way whatsoever. We want everybody to have the choice to drink a soy drink, whole milk, skim milk, 1 percent milk, whatever.
Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to myself.
Mr. Chairman, this bill has been terribly mischaracterized by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is about healthy choices for children.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I have seen a lot of bills mischaracterized on this floor in my time here, but I think this is one of the worst.
Passing the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act would be a critical step toward empowering parents and securing our children's well-being. Whole milk isn't just a beverage; it is a vital source of nutrients essential for children's growth. Denying access to its calcium, vitamin D, and protein threatens to inhibit their development.
To the anti-milk advocates, I have one thing to ask of you: What do you have against milk?
If you scrutinize them closely, you might be convinced that Democrats are waging a war on dairy. The Democrat administration has presided over a 15 percent milk price increase in the grocery store.
A Democrat proposal, the Green New Deal, calls for the elimination of cows for their so-called greenhouse gas emissions.
A Democrat policy is slashing the milk available to newborns through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for women, infants, and children by four quarts.
A Democrat interest group, PETA, has called milk a so-called white supremacist symbol. How patently absurd.
Let's end the war on milk and pass the bill.
Together, we can ensure that our children have access to the nutritional foundation they need to thrive and become the healthy, vibrant leaders of tomorrow.
Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.