The two stories we have done thus far on the mayor’s Healthy Children plan have delivered surprising levels of blowback. There is a notion somehow that city government in general should only focus on fiscal issues and the provision of city services — that, somehow, focusing on other areas of our community is a distraction.
As one reader responded to a potential ordinance changing default beverages on the children’s menu away from soda and high fructose juice, this is a campaign initiative that is “cluttering up our Council agenda.” They add, “I agree with the concept — but disagree that this is a local issue.”
They viewed it as a waste of time.
But how much time are we really wasting when the city council meets only until 7:10 PM on Tuesday night with only one item on the agenda after, ironically, the sugary beverage item was moved onto consent?
As Vanguard Editorial Board member Tia Will wrote, however, “I believe that this is very much a local issue. I believe that personal eating and drinking habits occur on the very local level, household by household. Children tend to see what their parents eat or provide for them as the ‘right’ way to eat and rarely question this until they become old enough to start understanding the commercials on TV or eating at friends’ houses by which time their basic preferences are fairly well established.”
We are a nation that is facing a crisis of childhood obesity and early onset diabetes, not to mention a community which contains surprising levels of poverty, considering how affluent we are on the surface. Twenty-four percent of our students are Title One. The Vanguard has heard from a number of educators who complain that kids are not getting proper nutrition, that for a sizable population, the majority of their food is consumed at the meals provided by schools.
We have vulnerable school age populations. A good percentage of the children who live in places like Royal Oak attend schools in Davis like Montgomery. There are children there whose only meals during the course of the day are the breakfast and lunch that they receive at school.
While Montgomery, as a Title I school, provides meals to children for breakfast and lunch, non-Title I schools provide only lunch. So, when we moved to South Davis and moved our kid from Patwin (a Title I school) to Pioneer, he lost the ability to receive a breakfast because it is not offered. While that is not a huge deal in our house, it may be for many other kids.
The Vanguard has continued concerns, of course, about the quantity of sugar in some of the school foods.
Will the sugary beverage portion of the initiative make a difference by itself? Absolutely not. It is why, on November 1, we wrote, “While we think the initiative and the focus on children’s health could be potentially beneficial, at the same time, we feel the list lacks a focus on some key issues.”
But from my perspective, putting this issue on the agenda moves us in the right direction, that of starting to focus more broadly on these issues. These are really issues that the city, the county and the schools need to tackle jointly.
As Vanguard Editorial Board Member Michelle Millet wrote: “I’m glad Mayor Wolk has brought attention to this issue. I hope it raises awareness about the negative effects of all sugary beverages, not just soda. (I see way too many 1st graders drinking 20 ounce containers of Gatorade).
“While this ordinance works to decrease the amount of sugary beverages served in restaurants we are continuing to serve it, (for ‘free’ to our low-income kids) in our schools in the form of chocolate milk. I hope First 5 will consider working to eliminate the distribution of this beverage in our schools’ breakfast and lunch programs.”
I share again the story of my nephew. I remember going to Patwin and being absolutely appalled by the food choices that were available for breakfast. My nephew, a few years ago, had a breakfast consisting of pastries, brownies, chocolate milk and other junk food. I was appalled and complained to the school and ultimately the school district — nothing happened.
I have since heard from teachers in schools like Montgomery that it’s a real problem because the kids, many of whom eat breakfast at school, load up on sugary food and then end up crashing mid-morning. This impacts not only their health but also their education.
Yet, when I raised the issue with some of the school board members, while they empathized, they failed to follow through.
I hope the issue will be taken more seriously now. But it illustrates the need to look beyond simply the city and look at a multi-jurisdictional approach.
[callout bg=”#000ace” color=”#ffffff” font=”1″ bt_content=”DONATE NOW” bt_pos=”bottomCenter” bt_style=”undefined” bt_color=”gray” bt_link=”https://secure.yourpatriot.com/ou/dpd/friends_of_the_vanguard/donate.aspx” bt_font=”0″]If everyone who reads this post could pledge just $10 per month, we would meet all financial goals for 2015 and the Vanguard would be fully fiscally viable [/callout]
Finally, as someone suggested, “I suspect this is a solution in search of a problem. If anyone thinks such an ordinance will make one iota of difference, they are living in dreamland. If parents are already allowing their children to drink lots of soda, then when the family gets to a restaurant and the kid wants soda, do you think this ordinance will make a hill of beans difference? The parent will allow their kid a soda. It is not likely such an ordinance will change anything.”
It is a good point. This is obviously a modest step. I think the reader underestimates the impact of having to opt in to a choice versus opting out of a choice.
But, more importantly, it starts setting the tone — that we need to look long and hard at the food our kids and, frankly, all of us are consuming.
One of the reasons that I “came out” as a diabetic last week was to illustrate how big a problem this is.
I was just reading a report this week from UC Davis that references a study showing that even those who know better find junk food irresistible. I definitely fall into that camp.
“People who know that certain foods are bad for them still respond positively when confronted by a picture of a burger, fries and soda,” the study found.
In the study, participants who self-reported they were nutritionally knowledgeable, but who didn’t have healthy eating habits, reacted more positively to images of “junk food” than images of healthy food. I have certainly fallen into that category.
“They know the consequences of eating unhealthy foods,” said the study’s author, Narine Yegiyan, an assistant professor of communication. “They are almost there in terms of willingness to give them up, but they are biologically struggling with it.”
She said the findings are important in shaping healthy eating campaigns aimed at these people who are prime candidates for eating behavior change.
Because this group initially responds positively to junk food images, healthy eating messages must be carefully crafted to prevent a “boomerang effect,” she said.
“Showing a picture of chips and saying ‘these are bad for you’ may just make them grab a bag of chips,” she said. “Encouraging them to eat healthy food like broccoli and carrots would be more effective. If images of junk food are going to be used they need to be accompanied by a very strong message stating why this is bad for you.”
Otherwise such images may “transfer into an increased desire to consume the unhealthy product,” the study states.
One point I want to leave people with is that, while I am grateful for all of the support I have received since writing that personal piece, and I certainly understand the horrible health effects of diabetes, the toughest thing on a day-to-day basis is fighting lifelong eating impulses.
And that is why I stand so strongly behind this initiative, not as the solution to the problem of sugar in young people’s diets, but as the start for this community to recognize how serious a problem this is and start to change the way we eat and, more importantly, the way we feed our kids and build bad habits from day one.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thanks David, both for the initial personal story, and for this follow up piece.
To posters who believe that this is a solution in search of a problem, or that this will have little impact, I would point out that at least some of you have also posted on other threads that “a penny saved is a penny earned” and that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.
In this instance, no one is pretending that this measure alone will solve the problem. But the problem is huge. The problem results in early preventable deaths, and in the case of prematurity, lifelong disability. The problem is real and costs us enormously individuals, as communities and as a nation. But as with any problem that is multifactorial ( as health clearly is) the solution will come not in one dramatic proposal, but rather in multiple small steps.
I see this proposal as a small step in the right direction. What I would hope is that it will encourage and inspire others in positions to make a change, such as the school board, the county, and private individuals and businesses to also take small, steps towards making the default selection a healthy choice. I do not believe that there is a “wrong place” for health to be addressed. The mayor’s initiative is as good a place as any to start the process of healthy innovation.
Tia wrote:
> I do not believe that there is a “wrong place” for health to be addressed.
I’m a big fan of “healthy kids” and I wish every kid in town was as healthy as my kids but I don’t think the “city” should pass laws to do this.
I’m wondering if Tia would be OK if the “city” passed “laws” to make the “city” more like my house:
100% ban on soda
Making every kid run 20 miles a week
100% ban on partially hydrogenated oils
Make every kid ride his bike (unless it is raining or the kid is sick)
100% ban on TV (kids don’t see any commercials for junk food)
Walks after dinner before desert for all homes and restaurants in town
100% ban on trans fats
I could go on and the city could pass more laws requiring all Davis kids to go on multi-day Sierra hikes, learn to fly fish and swim year round so they were in shape for half mile swims across mountain lakes.
If Tia is OK with LAWS to FORCE every kid in Davis do what my kids do where do we stop, is mandatory morning Tai Chi OK?
South of Davis
Once again, you are portraying this as a “ban”. Nothing is being banned here.
I would fully support all of the things that you have mentioned being offered, not as the default, but rather as something that had to be requested specifically. That is the proposal. There is no suggestion of a ban here which makes the entirety of your post irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Tia wrote:
> Once again, you are portraying this as a “ban”. Nothing is being banned here.
Are you trying to tell me that a “potential ordinance changing default beverages on the children’s menu away from soda and high fructose juice” would not BAN restaurants from having soda and high fructose juice as the default beverage on the children’s menu?
that i believe is correct, it would only make alternatives be the default.
Have you,or anyone else who supports this, figured out how local franchisees will deal with a “menu”, particularly a printed one, that is unique to Davis, yet promulgated/published by corporate? I see significant potential problems here, where voluntary compliance with the ordinance, by local franchisees, may cost them their franchise.
Have you ever tried to order a “Coke”, where the company/franchise has an exclusive contract with PepsiCo? Now imagine if the “big two” find out that they aren’t first ‘in the batting order’. These are likely realities that should be investigated/considered before going too far down this path.
Considering the big money, Coke machines at UC Davis are being replaced by Pepsi machines.. How much money are governments losing if they kick them all out? Those machines have water and juice and they are “kid height” buttons. When I eat at a sandwich shop, I see the worst stuff on the top shelf, Sun Chips and other options at “kid height”.
Isn’t that a way to encourage healthy choices?
I don’t think most people disagree that there is a problem of healthy choices. I still think that having the council direct staff to make up a sample ordinance to be debated by the council and then implemented somehow on local restaurants is not the most effective or efficient way to work on this problem. As I’ve said before: Dan Wolk can call the owners and managers of local restaurants himself and see what actions they would be willing to take voluntarily to help provide healthier options. If David Greenwald shares this concern, he can help make those phone calls.
Please: stop using staff resources on pet projects like this. City staff has been reduced by 20 – 25%. The ‘waste of time’ issue has to do with the amount of staff time expended on researching, writing, and revising the law. It has to do with making staff do outreach on something that the mayor himself could do outreach on (and probably much more effectively). Enacting another complaint-enforced law potentially increases the use of staff resources.
If we’re going to streamline city government, reducing the amount of stuff they do is part of that process.
Well said.
Don
“stop using staff resources on pet projects like this. “
I think that the term “pet project” is very telling. It is a false trivialization of a major problem. You call it that because it is not of great importance to you. Well, the condition of the roads is not as important to me as it seems to be to many. To me, health is a much more important issue than is the quality of our streets. However, I do not call the roads “pet projects” of those who want a smoother ride and their cars to last longer. I recognize it for the problem for many which it is.
Health is not a trivial issue. It is not solely an individual issue. If we had the ability to count up all of the hidden costs of dealing with all of the preventable illnesses, hospitalizations, and loss productivity due to obesity related illnesses, I can virtually guarantee you that it would exceed the costs of repair of our roads, but because the cost is hidden or defined as individual, we simply do not count it, but rather place it in our permanent “unmet needs” category. Ignoring, or trivializing the issue does not make it go away. As a society, we need to be taking this on, not just glossing over it.
I really think that we should plant more trees in Davis. Did you know that there are streets that don’t have a good canopy of shade trees? Trees are good for people, for the environment, and help reduce energy use. I could provide ample documentation about the impact of trees on the well-being of communities. We don’t have enough trees planted in many parts of Davis. This is a real priority for me. It’s not a trivial issue.
How do you suggest I go about solving this problem?
Don
“How do you suggest I go about solving this problem?”
I agree with you that there would be a big pay off, both individually and societally to have a more complete tree canopy. I would suggest that how to best go about solving the problem would depend upon the time line that you have in mind. There are a number of ways that you could approach it.
1. A relatively uncertain and time consuming way would be for you as an individual to identify all the streets that you feel are tree deficient, find out who owns the property, and try to get them as individuals to plant trees.
2. Another possibility would be for you to bring the issue up publicly by writing letters to the editor, articles on the Vanguard, maybe do a local news interview on the benefits of trees, or table at Farmer’s Market and hope that enough people will hear you, agree, and act on your suggestion.
3. You could try to form an alliance with an already existing group such as Cool Davis, to try to push your particular idea and hope to gain some traction that way.
4. Or, you could try to leverage the “bully pulpit” that exists in the form of the city council. This might mean something as time restricted as using the three minutes allotted to you at public comment to bring the issue up as many times as you like hoping that enough people will pay attention and act on your suggestions to make a difference.
5. You could do what it seems to take to truly get people’s attention to issues that are not near and dear to their own heart or pocket book and which they do not consider to be “real issues”. And that is to convince 3 members of the city council that your idea has enough merit to be put into the form of an ordinance.
What seems to be consistently missing from this conversation is the concept that I agree with. I would like us to have as small a government as possible. What people seem to miss is that if everyone were willing to take the concerns of others, as well as their own “pet issues” into account, and seek ways to mitigate adverse consequences rather than just claiming they do not exist, then we really would not need governemental intervention at all. Until we get to that point, unfortunately, governmental intervention is unfortunately frequently not only the most effective and efficient way, but often the only way to effect change.
how much staff time do you think will go into this?
Depends on how many complaints they get from Davis residents about restaurants not enforcing the law.
Agree 100% with Don Shor here.
I am a huge believer in healthy choices. Such as the ones that did not exist in my UCD dorm cafeteria in the early 80’s, known then as producing the “Freshman 15”, later helping produce diabetes. There are substantially better choices now in the dorms.
The venue, however, is not City government, and if the venue of any government, God willing it remain at the “available choices” and consumer information level, and not progress to bans and taxes.
Yaaa! It finally posted.
Is this coming from the same person who has consistently bemoaned the length of council meetings? Now that there was one short meeting you’re going to use that as an excuse to push unneeded policies that really aren’t going to do much good if any? As Don Shor pointed out there are other factors, such as staff time, and not just council time being wasted on this feel good measure. Stick to the big picture and quit the social engineering.
i may be wrong, but my impression was that david’s chief complaint was the council making critical decisions late in the night when they are tired and the community has gone home.
the other thing i have noticed is that the meetings since dan has become mayor are shorter and i can’t recall a major issue being tackled since the council came back from their summer break.
also why is it a feel good measure? it seems like this is a critical issue for a large number of kids in our community?
DP
“a feel good measure”
I believe that this phrase is used in knee jerk to any measure that an individual does not feel impacts them directly and thus is unworthy of consideration. But for those of us whose careers have centered around the provision of health care and recognize that the most effective and efficient form of health care is prevention, “feel good” takes on an entirely different connotation.
Yes, this is all about “feeling good” because of a healthy lifestyle. Will Dan Wolk and I also feel good if this measure is enacted…..doubtless. But I am not going to pretend, nor allow anyone else to claim unchallenged that us “feeling good” is the point. The point is the health and well being of the children in our community. Where but in our community would be a better place to promote day to day healthy habits of the children who live in our community ?
Well, Tia, sugary soft drinks, hamburgers, with cheese and “special sauce”, fries, etc. should be treated the same. At a minimum, this should be changed to VERY lean meat (preferably, tofu, instead), low-fat cheese, and unsalted fries. For all the effort to focus on ‘sugary drinks’, why not go for something more meaningful by broadening the effort? Or does chlorestrol, hypertension, etc. not rise to the same concern as diabetes?
BP
As stated above, I see health as an integral part of the “big picture”. And as far as “social engineering is concerned, I would say that sinking vast amounts of money into roads, thus prioritizing cars over other modes of transportation is a huge exercise in “social engineering”.
“is not the most effective or efficient way to work on this problem.”
If the issue is truly being effective and efficient, and the goal is improving health, I would argue that an ordinance probably is far better at both than would be first individually discussing the issue with every involved business person, likely not getting much buy in, then having to rethink and redraw up a new plan. I think that Don’s approach, while laudable and optimal, would result in people choosing to stay with the simpler status quo which has the benefits to them of not having to make any change while maximizing the profits of those who simply do not care about children’s health.
Of course, if what one wants is no change, that would be a more effective and efficient approach.
An interesting set of presumptions on your part.
David/Tia…what existing City staff resources would you reassign to the “health” initiatives you support? Firefighters/police? Engineers/Planners? Park/street maintenance? HR staff? Finance staff? Department heads? Open space coordinator? Recycling/solid waste? Just not understanding where you would shift priorities FROM to loosen up resources for your “priorities”.
hpierce
I think that this is a very reasonable question to which I do not know the answer because I do not have a detailed knowledge of the structure of the city staff and departments. I will have to defer to David on this one. However, I do have one additional thought. The people of Davis elected Dan Wolk to be mayor. Whether any given individual agrees with that decision or not is not my point. It is that I believe that as the Mayor, Mr. Wolk may be in a better position than either David or myself to know what resources he feels should be devoted to this issue. There are many, many voices on the Vanguard that feel that the sole issue before the council should be economic. I feel that this is an error and is exactly the kind of “one issue” thinking that got us into our current economic problems. The issue of lack of infrastructure maintenance was largely one of simply choosing not to look at the issue at all while focusing on other issues ( such as compensation and benefits ) pushed by very vocal groups.
What we have now is some very vocal groups ( largely from the business and development community) who feel that their issues have been neglected. I agree that they should be heard. And so should those of us who see public health “not being heard” while representing far bigger costs in the long run which are just being buried as today’s “unmet needs”.
Nice punt. You know not how it should it be done, just that it SHOULD be done, and someone else is responsible to implement and make everything alright. We should also find a way to make water go uphill, and generate a lot of surplus energy (and revenue) that would likely not be captured, in the process. Huge benefits to Davis and to mankind. Why the hell is the city not doing this? (After all, nature already does).
At 9:29 am Tia Will wrote “The people of Davis elected Dan Wolk to be mayor.”
Have things changed recently? As I understood it, we do not have a separate vote for mayor, but that by tradition (previously by vote of the council….sometimes….if they liked the top vote getter in the city council race) the top voter getter from one election became the Mayor Pro Tem and then became the Mayor two years later.
Barbara
You are correct. Defacto, it is the same thing. I apologize if my wording was confusing to anyone.
hpierce wrote:
> David/Tia…what existing City staff resources would you
> reassign to the “health” initiatives you support?
Great question since with staff cuts and 16 days in a row off for Christmas (just a few weeks after the city had 10 days in a row off for Thanksgiving) the city does not have time to work on “feel good*” measures.
*a “feel good” measure is something outside the scope of of “normal” business that makes some people “feel good” (e.g. if a city wants to regulate soda or if Tia get’s Kaiser to pay staff to check the tire pressure of every patient before they drive home to save gas as well as save lives since each year kids die after accidents caused by under inflated tires)
To reply to your apparent “hidden” message, actually it is 17 days, as follows:
2 ‘alternate Fridays’ off: A Pinkerton/Chaney initiative, where the employees work 9/80, so those two days have already been “worked”, and are not “paid leave”. Employees did not negotiate this, it was imposed by CM/HR.
3 weekends (Sat/Sun), for 6 days.
4 holidays “Christmas” and its eve (but it isn’t really Christmas, as that would violate church/state – just ‘coincidence’ that it’s Dec 24 & 25).
5 days where employees are “encouraged to take off” using vacation/comp time or leave without pay, between “Christmas (how did THAT get into the secular MOU!) and New Years”, so that they can shut CITY OFFICES down (please note that it is primarily City Office assigned staff, not those in the Corp Yards, Public Safety – many of these folks are on the job and do NOT (or cannot) take the “encouraged” leave). City Offices’ folk basically HAVE to take their other leave off, as the facility is closed.
Similar point was made previously, re: Thanksgiving, where only two days were holidays (pd leave) and the rest were weekends, an ‘alternate Friday’,or “you have to take your leave when we tell you to, or go leave w/o pay”.
For a new employee, earning 15 days vacation/year, these two “encouraged time off” events consume over 50% of your regular vacation leave. An off-set is 2.5 “floating holidays”, which most treat as vacation, but it’s still close to 50%, at the end of the day. Moral…don’t get hired by the City between July 1 and the end of the year, or you will be taking unpaid days off! (and, technically, you can’t earn vacation or sick leave for days that are ‘leave without pay’.)
hpierce wrote:
> To reply to your apparent “hidden” message,
It was not a “hidden” message I was just pointing out that if the city is going to be closed and can’t help citizens with stuff for 26 (corrected to 27 by hpierce) out of 38 days maybe it is not a good idea to take staff time to “study” a soda pop ban…
P.S. I have no problem if Tia (or anyone else) wants to take the rest of the year off and spend her days talking to restaurant owners trying to get them to offer healthier choices to kids…
Considering how much the City and County spends on “consultants”, I would guess the staff are unqualified for what they are hired to do, or misdirected by their managers, maybe Mr Brazil can correct this.
How many qualified nutritionists are hired by the City to even study this problem?
So I think it will take more money out of the budget for Consultants with an agenda similar to the people proposing change with no balance to the conversation.
how about first 5 write the initiative and harriet make sure that it meets legal standards?
DP wrote:
> how about first 5 write the initiative and harriet
> make sure that it meets legal standards?
As an attorney, care to guess how many hours it will take to Harriet/BBK to draw something like this up and “make sure that it meets legal standards”?
I have no idea and I’m wondering if it will be around $2K or as much as $20K?
Gonna guess you bracketed it pretty good… if this was a ‘pool’, I’d pick $5500 CA, $4000 other staff (total comp basis).
BTW… don’t expect City attorney nor staff to itemize costs for ordinance preparation/review. Won’t happen.
what if the change saves one kid from diabetes or early death from obesity – will that be worth the cost?
not my area of expertise. but i would be stunned if it cost more than a few hours.
DP wrote:
> not my area of expertise. but i would be stunned if it cost more than a few hours.
I have never seen (or heard of) an outside law firm doing ANY new project from start to finish in a “few hours”…
Don
“An interesting set of presumptions on your part.”
Actually it isn’t just presumption ( although there is some of that). We have a model for the kinds of behaviors involved, and what strategies actually make a difference. That model is smoking in public. Suggestions to business owners that second hand smoke was harmful, and that it would be better first if they created nonsmoking areas and ultimately if they did not allow smoking on their premises were met with very stiff resistance. The arguments were the same one’s we hear now. ” It won’t make a difference.” “It isn’t the place for government to be meddling”. “It will destroy my business”. “We can self regulate”.”We can’t afford to dedicate resources to this”. All of these arguments and more were dedicated to stopping the “no smoking in public enclosed spaces movement.
But what it actually took to make a difference was multiple individuals at all levels of community involvement including private citizens, public advocates, public health officials and law makers at local, state, and the national level to make major change. And the change, if it even could be quantified would be enormous in terms of healthy years gained by those who chose to stop smoking, but much more importantly by those who did not grow up perceiving smoking as the norm and thus never started prior to the age of 17 and thus never became addicted.
In Davis?
Don
I don’t know. I wasn’t here during much of the debate. I have no idea how the city council of Davis did or did not address the issue of smoking. Perhaps you or Rich could provide the details. What I do know is how it played out across the country which is a matter of well established public record complete with congressional investigation of the practices of the tobacco companies and huge lawsuits defended by those who stood to profit well after the adverse effects on health had been well documented.
I was speaking in principle, not with specific knowledge of Davis. But until, proven wrong, my guess would be that the local Davis businesses probable would not have been unique in immediately stepping up to the plate and banning indoor smoking the minute the adverse health effects were documented.
Any takers on what happened here locally ?
At the end of the day, non-smoking patrons insisted on it, and the businesses, ‘followed the money’… there were other things going on, but the “bottom line”(results) was the “bottom line” (best profits).
BTW, as I recall, there were two major groups of folks (non-smokers) who pushed the local businesses… those who disliked/were sensitive to/allergic to cigarette/cigar smoke (and advised the business they would no longer patronize them), and those former smokers who became “prohibitionists”. As it was, it went thru a phase of “smoking/non-smoking” areas, and when business people finally figured out how HVAC systems worked, and the cleaning costs in the smoking areas, and the loss of potential business being greater by allowing smoking vs. not allowing, they made the business decision. The main benefit of the ordinance was to give the business owners “cover” for a decision they had or wanted to implement. They could blame the City.
That only applies in certain states. I have to remind myself how little has changed when I travel or go back where I grew up in the Midwest. Restaurants that have a sign but no physical barrier to the smoke, or Casinos in California is a good example. If the cigarette companies had not added all the chemicals like the companies do to milk, we might not have the problem with these kids today, or smoking.
Shallow Dan is only interested in getting elected to the assembly. This is just one more gimmick that will have zero impact on the health of our children while wasting city resources. If you want to have a real impact ban the sale of soda to minors. Much like an R rated movie, the parents have to purchase the soda for their child. That would take care of soda sales in our schools. Dan’s proposed law only puts one more burden on small businesses which sounds like it will not work. Will the city reimburse businesses that have to maintain a stock of milk which may never be purchased if parents continue the trend of opting for soda?
Shallow Dan again misses the point with requiring the option of low fat milk which has more sugar in it than regular vitamin D milk. Why not opt for the healthier version? Shallow Dan’s push for low fat milk sounds healthier to the uninformed public when he runs again for the assembly or othe