Starbucks 'Trenta': How The New Size Compares To Your Stomach
Famous Death Row Last Meals
Marshmallow Fluff is a wonderful concoction of sugar, corn syrup, egg whites and vanilla that is whipped into a creamy and spreadable goo. It turns out that the tasty treat might join the list of foods banned from Massachusetts schools, despite the fact that the spread is a local icon, invented in the state back in 1917 and has been a popular New England pantry staple ever since.
It's most famous use is the Fluffernutter Sandwich, which combines peanut butter and Fluff between two slices of bread, and this is what is getting the sweet stuff into trouble. While parents have packed Fluffernutter sandwiches as special treats in kids' lunchboxes for many years, some parents recently noticed that they are being included as a school lunch option by the schools themselves - 1 out of every 14 schools, to be exact.
Iconic or not, some parents don't want this sandwich served at school and would like to see it banned from campuses.
They plan to get this done by using an amendment to a junk food bill that is heading through the legislature. The amendment was proposed by Democrat Jarrett T. Barrios, a very health-conscious man and father, who was "startled" when his 8 year old son (in 3rd grade) asked for a Fluffernutter at home.
This seems like a bit of an overreaction to the request of a young child, especially in a state where Fluffernutters are part of the history, but Barrios and his supporters stand firm in their position. Opponents, including the executive director of Action for Healthy Kids, a nonprofit group "that promotes good nutrition and physical activity in schools," say that there is no need to "call out" specific foods or brands in the bill and in addition, the school lunch program in Massachusetts is so strong, that a small amount of Fluff should not pose a nutritional threat to any of the students.
LOOK: Amazing Underwater Photos Of Dogs
Broke Stars: 11 Celebrities Who Went Bankrupt
PHOTOS: How You Can Get The 'Miracle' Dress
Social Security Is Failing Even Faster Than We Thought
Man Says Starbucks Discriminated Against Him Because He Has Half An Arm
Jane Seymour's Modest And Modern Style
Chris Brown, Grammys 2012: Embattled Singer Slams Critics
Ford's clever Sports Illustrated Swimsuit ad features phantom model
Janice Dickinson's Outrageous Style
Trace Adkins Reunites With College Crush, 30 Years Later
Van Gogh's Starry Night modded into beautiful interactive light and sound show (video)
Lauren Scruggs Goes On Ski Vacation
Adele Five-Year Break? Singer Plans to Focus on Relationship, Write 'Happy Record'
'Hooker Teacher' Forced To Resign, Now Can't Find Work
WATCH AND LAUGH: Cops In 2-Hour Standoff With Empty Car
Nick Cannon Hospitalized: Star Reveals New Serious Health Condition
PHOTOS: Model Falls At Dennis Basso Show
Woman's Dead Fiance Is Behind Her Disappearance: Cops
Best In Show Winner Declared
WATCH: Saint VaLINtine Hits Game-Winning Shot
Denise Richards' Casual Style
WATCH: Amazon Withholds Money From Blooming Florist
PHOTOS: Cute Overload?
LOOK: The Last Of The Cave People
Honduras Prison Fire Kills At Least 300 Inmates
WATCH: Clinton Aides Open Up About Lewinsky Affair
Scuba Diver Had Motive To Drown Wife On Honeymoon, Prosecutor Says
PHOTOS: Just In Time For Carnival, A Beginner's Guide To Rio
Reports: Iran Stops Oil Exports To 6 European Countries
WATCH: Nancy Grace Defends Her Controversial Comments About Whitney Houston
'Game Of Thrones' Season 2 Teaser: War Is Coming
Hidden In The Open: A Photographic Essay Of African-American Male Couples
6-20-2006 @12:14PM nika said... I would rather see them ban peanut butter (that would actually be doing something for kid's health) instead of or in addition to the fluff. Fluff has ZERO nutritional value (and its nauseating to boot but there is no accounting for taste). Peanut butter kills. Which should be a higher priority?
I am ok with the banning of pure sugar like fluff from school cafeterias. (I live in MA by the way)
Reply
6-20-2006 @12:28PM DanGarion said... 'nika', Peanut butter kills.
Wow it does? Who does it kill other then possibly people that are allergive to Peanuts?
Reply
6-20-2006 @1:10PM nika said... yep.. it would kill my daughter and plenty of other kids.
Not sure how that is hard to understand.
Reply
6-20-2006 @1:16PM traci said... Does the school from serving it mean that parents can't send their children with it? Is the school to dictate what a parent can feed a child? Hello...big Brother?
Reply
6-20-2006 @1:35PM Matt said... You left out the most fun part of the story - Fluff was actually invented in this Mass. representative's district several decades ago, and is still manufactured in the state. It takes quite a set of (ahem) walnuts to promote taking a nutrition-free internationally famous food invented in your district out of schools.
The more politically weaselly path would have been for a law commending Fluff and its belovedness by billions of Massachusettsianses, and restricting its use in school lunches to desserts "as part of a balanced diet." No one in their right mind believes a fluff sandwich (with nut butter or not) is a suitable lunch for a growing kid. It's like PB&J without any fruit in the J.
Slashfood: you guys and me have gone round a few times about "banning" foods in schools or labels and such, and as such, you guys *really* need to read Marion Nestle's new book "What To Eat." World-famous nutritionist, James Beard Lifetime award winner, she holds no truck to anyone trying to say bogus things about food, good or bad (you'd particularly like the chapter where she calls soy foods "bitter" and "unpalatable" and refuses to cave in to assertions that they're particularly healthful). Contact the publisher and see if they'll send each of your normal contributors a copy - it's *well* worth reading.
Reply
6-20-2006 @2:26PM traci said... nika..I think they were wondering if it kills OTHER than those with severe allergies.
Reply
6-20-2006 @2:51PM Jumper said... nika
sorry about your child's allergies, BUT you can't ban every food that someone is allergic to. There would be no food for anyone to eat and we would all die. DUH!
I think people should be concerned with what their child eats, and let other parents raise their own children.
Mind you own kool-aid or are you allergic to that too!!!
Reply
6-20-2006 @3:00PM Franz Hemingbeck said... Why don't they ban sodas and foods laden with high fructose corn syrup instead.
Reply
6-20-2006 @3:50PM Donna said... I do not think that they should be banning fluff from school lunches, what's next. Everything in moderation that's what it's all about.
Reply
6-20-2006 @4:02PM B said... This isn't about banning fluff from schools, but preventing the cafeteria from serving it. If you still want you kids to dine on fluffernutters, pack it in thier lunch. Personally, I think this is a reasonable idea.
Reply
6-21-2006 @10:59AM jmforester said... The amendment in the article isn't about banning Fluff, or preventing it from being served, but controlling how often it can be served, and that it shouldn't be the main part of a meal due to its lack of nutrition.
It's interesting that Fluff is being focused on for control because it is 50% sugar. Many jams and jellies are up to 50% sugar, sweeteners, high fructose corn sugar, etc. Does this mean that jams, jellies, and preserves with high sugar contents will be controlled as well?
Reply
6-24-2006 @8:31AM Joe Morley said... Hey,what's the big deal?
I grew up on the stuff and it has made my dentist a wealthy man.
Reply
6-24-2006 @1:50PM lilrickey said... Actually, tablespoon for tablespoon grape jelly has nearly twice as much sugar and nearly twice the calories of Fluff. Two tablespoons of Welch's Grape Jelly has 100 calories and 26 grams of sugar. Two tablespoons of Fluff has 60 calories and 15 grams of sugar.
Now excuse me while I go make myself a Fluffernutter.
Reply