WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Last week’s Senate Ag Committee unanimous consent approval of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act is a major hurdle cleared for this decade-long effort that sends S. 222 with amendments to the Senate floor in hopes of a unanimous consent vote there as well, and hopefully soon.

This has been a long term and grueling volunteer effort by many to get to this point of doing what’s best for children and farmers. We’re not there yet, so please contact your Senators and Representative to support S. 222 and H.R. 649!

Every phone call, fax or email from a constituent will help. Go to http://www.congress. gov/members/find-your-member and type in your address to see who represents you.

Last week we cited some differences from the House bill due to amendments in the Senate Ag Committee. This week, we want Farmshine readers to know, those amendments won’t be a problem for delicious, nutritious whole milk.

In fact, once students find out their schools can offer whole milk – after the legislation potentially passes both the full House and full Senate and is signed by President Trump – stand back! They will be asking for it!

In a phone interview with the bill’s champion on the House side, Rep. Glenn ‘G.T.’ Thompson, we’ve learned that the Senate bill’s language regarding non-dairy substitutes was negotiated to help gain a unanimous consent vote.

What does it mean? Essentially, schools would be allowed to offer a non-dairy alternative, BUT it would need to be “nutritionally equivalent” to real dairy milk. Plus, the underlying statute requires that schools serve real milk with every meal. This does not change.

Could a school choose to offer a non-dairy alternative alongside fat-free real dairy milk and not allow the whole milk? Sure, I guess that’s possible, but highly unlikely due to cost and due to the limited options that USDA deems equivalent – fortified soy – for children in other feeding programs with a medical need for the replacement.

“This language does not relieve schools of the obligation to serve milk because that requirement is part of the underlying law,” said Rep. Thompson in a phone interview with Farmshine. Furthermore, he says schools are only required to provide a non-dairy substitute that is nutritionally equivalent when they get a note stating the physical reason a child needs the substitute.

“This has always been the case, but now parents can write the note instead of just a doctor,” he explains, adding that both his House bill and the Senate bill made this change, because “we support parental rights.”

He also points out that both the House and Senate bills include language permitting whole and 2% milk, flavored and unflavored, as well as lactose-free milk to be offered. This expands the options for real dairy for students that may have shunned it, not just for flavor, but also because of lactose intolerance.

Where the Senate bill differs is that schools may also offer a non-dairy beverage to the students, at large, but again, this must be “nutritionally equivalent” to real dairy milk.

 In fact, as noted in the language reported in Farmshine last week, the Senate bill’s amended version specifically cites calcium, vitamin D, and protein equivalency, and leaves additional equivalency requirements above and beyond this to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture as the USDA oversees the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs.

Bottom line, says Rep. Thompson: “Milk is mandatory under this (Senate) bill. The alternative beverage is an option that they can choose to do IF nutritionally equivalent.”

In addition, we did some checking, and it is clear that USDA currently only recognizes certain brands of fortified soy milk as part of the dairy category meeting  equivalency for the purpose of other feeding programs, such as WIC, so that children who medically cannot have dairy protein have an option. These examples are not only more expensive than real milk, they are also not as widely available or accepted and therefore are unlikely to be simply offered without a doctor’s or parent’s note stating need.

To be sure — especially once schools are allowed to offer it — whole milk will beat non-dairy options every time on flavor and total nutrient density.

“We’re on solid ground. Alternatives just do not have the nutritional equivalency,” says Thompson, who is hoping the Senate will pass their version very soon, so the House can pick it up and pass it as well to get it to the President’s desk in time to make a difference for next school year.

We at Farmshine also hope this all gets done before schools are finished lining up their milk provisions for the 2025-26 school year this summer — so they can include whole milk in the options they request bids on. Stay tuned.