Should we restrict junk being sold in schools?

[Palo Verde]

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has a campaign to reduce the amount of junk food children eat. Part of this is asking for governmental restrictions on offering sodas and candy bars in schools:

CSPI has repeatedly called for Congress to give the Agriculture Department authority to restrict food sold in school vending machines and school cafeteria lines.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09....ap/index.html

Should we just let the free market handle this? If children want to spend their money on Coke insted of orange juice, let 'em.

Or does this affect society as a whole in increased costs for health care?

Should these junk foods be freely sold in all schools? Only high schools? Elementary schools too?

Who should decide? Each individual school? School district boards? City or state governments? The federal government?

[Palo Verde]

Oyy! Of course, insted of "boing" in the title it should be 'being.'

Why do I always seem to screw up titles?

[UrbanChic]

I'm almost tempted to be anti-whatever the Center for "Science" in the Public Interest is for.

Parents should do their best to educate their children about nutrition and health. It would also be nice if healthier snack options were available, assuming they're not already.

[DrDeth]

Well, let us compare Coke & Apple Juice. Both are basicly sugar water. (OJ does contain some vitamins. ). Why is Coke so bad and Apple Juice so good?

[FisherQueen]

Most kids don't have a strong sense of the benefits of a balanced diet over a diet composed entirely of Chee-tos and Dr. Pepper, at an age when the eating habits that they develop will affect the way they eat, and their overall health, for the rest of their lives.

If they were at home, they wouldn't be allowed to eat whatever junk they would choose for themselves.

I think it's a little odd that they can do so at school, where the school would seem to have some responsibility for keeping them reasonably healthy if it's in its power.

Boing!

[Squink]

Originally posted by DrDeth
Why is Coke so bad and Apple Juice so good?

Caffeine might be part of the answer to that. I see a fair number of coke junkies cruising the pop aisles for their daily sixpack of caffeinated goodness, but far fewer with a jones for applejuice. Applejuice is a somewhat natural product, coke is designed to make people want to drink it to excess.
-Just IMHO.

[greck]

I'm all for kids having choices, but they should be presented with maximum opportunities to make good choices and minimal opportunities to make bad ones.
They should be able to choose from: Broccoli, peas, green beans, spinach. Freedom, choices. For dessert: Apples, oranges, bananas, or strawberries.

Their junk food availability should be limited.
If it's available, they'll eat it.

Kids don't really think they're ever going to get old and less that they might want to be healthy later in life. This is why they have adults to guide them.

They should definitely have their Boing intake monitored.

[Czarcasm]

Originally posted by autz
Oyy! Of course, insted of "boing" in the title it should be 'being.'

Why do I always seem to screw up titles?

Fixed it.

[badmana]

Well, is it that hard for kids to walk to the corner store and buy whatever they want?

I don't get it. A coke machine isn't going to cause kids to suddenly become adicted. Kids are getting their fix all over the place. Stopping schools from selling "bad" food is just going to have the kids walking a little bit more (not a bad thing really).

[sandythecur]

Well, yes, sometimes it is hard for kids to walk to the corner store, at least during the day. With ever-increasting restrictions surrounding school buildings, even in my rural area, kids can't come and go from school like they used to be able to.

So, during the day when they're trapped , shouldn't we (as adults and presumably people with more knowledge) try to provide them with healthier alternatives than nacho chips and cola?

I don't know. I'm not a big fan of government intervention in most cases. In this case, however, I'd like to see kids encouraged to make good choices. Heaven knows I wish I'd started making better choices about food earlier in life. I wouldn't have so many bad habits to break.

Like Juanita, I hope that healther options are at least *available* -- they weren't when I was in school.

I won't hijack this thread by ranting about the nutritional atrocities leveled upon unsuspecting children in the form of school lunches. I have been known to rant about that in person, and it ain't pretty.

[Palo Verde]

In my son's school, the children aren't allowed off campus during the school day, so it's not just a matter of hopping down to the corner store to buy a candy bar.

If momma doesn't give them Coke, and they can't access it at school, they probably can't get it (at least not at all often).

At his school (admittedly, an elementary) you have a lunch choice of milk, water, or whatever mom packs in your lunch bag.

But I know when he goes on to middle and high schools, it will be another ballgame.

[tracer]

Originally posted by autz
Oyy! Of course, insted of "boing" in the title it should be 'being.'

I'm all for eliminating the Junk Boing currently sold in schools.

Our kids deserve nothing but the highest quality Boing.

[PlanMan]

[slight hijack 'n thought]
This school distict signed an EXCLUSIVE contract with Pepsi to sell their products in the couple hundred schools in this county. Mrs. Plan is a teacher in the system, and tells me they have been told this exclusivity extends to soft drinks brought in for school events - no Cokes, no store brands - and even for your own lunch!
[/sh't]

So far as I know, there aren't healthy alternatives, nor are there ANY alternatives to the Pepsi Boing.

[MLS]

Absolutely! Let them buy it on the street from a dealer like everybody...
Oh.
<Emily Latella> Never mind </Emily Latella>

[Leaper]

Why should schools be getting into the business of 'endorsing' specific mass-produced products and brands anyway? I know, I know, that's the beauty and wonder of the free market, and schools do need the money, but still, it strikes me as wrong (though not nearly as wrong as those "teacher's kits" that are advertising kits in disguise)...

[Run4YourLife]

As a high school student, I think people make too big of a deal about what the vending machines have in them. We are all responsible and intelligent to know that junk food isn't good for us, and we have to be responible for what we eat. When we go out in the "real world" there will be junk food surrounding us wherever we go in our career. Kids have to learn and take responsibility sometime over what they consume. The one thing I don't like is where high schools don't have enough healthy foods to choose out of because then you might be stuck with junk food because you have to eat something. Also, elementary schools shouldn't have junk food because they're still young kids without the responsibility to make wise choices on their nutrition.

[Guinastasia]

It depends-are we talking high school-where kids will just eat what they want, regardless, or elementary school kids?

I shudder to think of an entire first grade class on a caffeine buzz.

[Dung Beetle]

My knee-jerk response is that I don't want that stuff in my kids' school. Government intervention does give me pause. However, I am a very authoritarian-style parent, and if I don't want my kids consuming crap, then I do whatever is in my power to keep crap from them. (Which is not to say that they don't get junk food. But I like to monitor the amount they get.)

[cowgirl]

It's a really hard question.

With schools getting less and less gvt funding, they sometimes really need the extra cash that Coke (or whoever) provides them. It's not just food, either, that is corporate-sponsored.

Added to people's commitment to individual choice - caveat emptor, "I can make my own decisions" kind of thing - it seems hard to support banning this stuff from schools.

But, check this out !

Last year ... FoodShare, a community agency dedicated to making nutritious food widely available, launched a pilot project at nine Toronto schools. They brought in a child-sized salad bar stocked with fruits, vegetables, grain products and a daily source of protein so kids could create a healthy lunch.

There were plenty of skeptics at first. What would a generation programmed to salivate at the sight of McDonald's golden arches, want with broccoli and arugula? How could fresh produce compete with hotdogs and chips? Why would kids eat foods they'd never seen at home?

...

The program turned out to be the surprise hit of the 2002-2003 school year.

Parents came and joined their children for lunch. Volunteers — some who could barely speak English — bonded with their neighbours as they chopped, diced and served. Teachers and students ate together.

Lunchtime at the school became a community event.

This fall, five more schools are getting salad bars. FoodShare hopes to add another 15 schools in 2004.

[Grim_Beaker]

That's a nice example cowgirl and I'm glad it worked out for that school. If it works for the school and the kids want it, then by all means, include healthy alternatives. IMO though, banning junk food goes against principles of choice and personal responsibility. It's just another example of paternalism gone wrong. Give kids healthy food choices in addition to the junk food currently available, but let them make the choice.

[erislover]

I seem to recall a study that if children (of an age where they had not yet developed actual eating habits) are given a varied choice of foods to eat, that in the short term their diet will be terrible, but over time they will naturally tend to eat a balanced diet. The one thing that threw this "naturally healthy in the long run" diet off was the presence of...

Junk food! Yep. I'll see if I can dig it up.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
I shudder to think of an entire first grade class on a caffeine buzz.

Um ... isn't there a caffeine-free variety of Pepsi they could make available in the elementary schools, for just this reason?

[erislover]

Hmm. So far I've only found a reference to a so-called classic study done in the 1930s. I'd hate to be basing my claim on something that old, but if it hasn't been selected against then perhaps it is accepted.

http://www.becomingtheparent.com/sub...uestion17.html

Given healthy food choices, children will select a balanced diet. One of the most important things for parents to know is that, for the most part, in an environment where there are healthy food choices, you can trust children's natural appetites. There was a classic study done on children's eating in the 1930's where babies and toddlers were offered a wide selection of healthy food choices each day over an extended period of time. Sometimes children would "binge" on one particular food, eating only eggs, for instance. Sometimes they would eat more or less, but over a two-week period, all of the children chose a balanced diet.

[Dung Beetle]

let them make the choice.

What age children are we discussing here? I'm thinking of my own children, ages 6 and 11, and they don't need those kinds of choices. High school, I guess I'm OK with it.

[even sven]

I have mixed opinions on this, so forgive me while i work out my thoughts. On one had, I grew up on a steady diet of Mountain Dew, chips, ice cream, pizza and french fries all bought from school vending machines and snack bars. Mostly because that was what was offered. Until my third year, my high school offered nothing but the disgusting government surplus driven school lunchs and a wide variety of fast food sponsered junk food stands and unhealthy snack bar type items.

On my third year, they began offering somewhat healthy (or at least not actively unhealthy) salads, pasta, a Mexican entree and an Asian entree to the mix. This was a godsend to those of us who had to buy food at school (as in did not have parents/transportation that would get our access to the store or off campus for lunch- a big issue in poor schols).

So it is a good idea to offer healthy lunch options. But it's hard. The unhealthy options are often offered by fast food companies that cook all the food, bring it to campus, deal with all the sales and give the schools a cut of the profit. But setting up healthy options is a lot of work and some money that is desperately needed elsewhere. So maybe some regulation is in order.

Now about unhealthy food. I certainly at lots of it. But is it really neccesary? The kids will eat what is offered, and if healthy stuff is served they will eat that. And the school has to make a conscious decision about what to stock. It's not like junk food is some sort of default. It is just as easy to fill that vending machine with healthy snacks. It's just as easy to stock the snack bar with yogurt, fruit, healthy sandwiches and fresh veggies. The snack bars and cafeterias at my health-conscious college do it without blinking.

In the end, kids will eat junk food. But ultimately I don't think that schools should be in the business of providing it. They don't provide skimpy clothes or cigarettes to their 18+ plus students. Why should they provide junk food?

Schools make a conscious decision about what they promote. And they ought to be making active decisions about what kinds of food they promote. This should especially be shielded from the financial influences of big business trying to profit off kids that has no place in schools anyway. We live in an age of unprecedented obesity and very real, very deadly health problems that can kill kids at a younger age than ever. Our schools should not be offering (and thus at best promoting, at worst forcing the poorest least privledged kids into) junk food.

[artemis]

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker
It's just another example of paternalism gone wrong.[/i].

It's not paternalism at all. Paternalism is condescendingly treating ADULTS as though they are children. Treating children as though they are children isn't paternalistic, it's responsible parenting (and schools do stand in loco parentis to their students during the school day).

I fail to see how telling kids (particularly elementary school kids) that they can't eat junk food at lunch is so terrible. I suspect the REAL reason so much junk food is served in school cafetereias is that it's simpler to prepare (and probably cheaper) than the healthy stuff. Hardly a good reason to serve it.

[erislover]

Hardly a good reason to serve it.

No, but if the funding is short, there isn't exactly option 2 available. I'm not saying funding isn't available, but I'm just saying: if junk is cheaper overall in terms of storage, prep, direct cost, etc, and if schools have very tight budgets, then the current state of affairs is not surprising or improper, it is all there can be.

[tracer]

Originally posted by even sven
On one ha[n]d, I grew up on a steady diet of Mountain Dew, chips, ice cream, pizza and french fries all bought from school vending machines and snack bars.

Where can I find one of these vending machines that dispenses pizza? Damn, that sounds good right about now.

Until my third year, my high school offered nothing but the disgusting government surplus driven school lunchs [ snip ]

Disgusting? You mean, you don't like "hot dog on buttered bun" and "roast leg of surprise" and "spaghetti and meatballs that have been sitting in a Number 10 Can for 2 years"?

[norinew]

I don't think these junk food options should be available to grade-school kids. Middle and high school, OK. My daughters' school had this thing they did that I think was helpful. . .a parent could send in some money at the beginning of each month (or however often) to go into the childs' lunch account. But, that money could only be used to buy the standard school lunch (and whether the standard school lunch is any good is a whole other debate), but could not be used to buy ice cream or chips. The kids had to bring in cash for those. This means, at least at an elementary school level, that kids couldn't buy the junk without their parents sending money specifically for the junk. I remember giving my kid ice cream money on Monday if she got an A on her previous Fridays' spelling test.

Of course, middle and high school (esp. high school) students have freer access to money. But by then, they should be taking some responsibility for what they are eating. FWIW, when I was in high school (more years ago than I care to think), a chef's salad was offered, every day, as an alternative to that days' lunch. It was very, very popular.

[Grim_Beaker]

artemis

Paternalism: A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities.

I don't necessarily agree that paternalism is only applicable as a term for adults. In any case the article in question doesn't specify the ages of the kids that the potential ban may be enacted against; it only notes that:

Fifteen percent of children age 6 to 19 are overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

If they decided to reduce (but not entirely remove) the available junk food provided by elementary schools I would be amenable to that all other things being equal (i.e. if school dependence on corporate money was not an issue). At Jr. High and above I think that's taking it too far.

[Grim_Beaker]

Just as an FYI here is a list of recent campaigns that the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been involved in. Included in those campaigns is this one which is an attempt to keep a Seattle school district from renewing it's Coke contract in middle and high school. Here is an article from the Seattle Times regarding it. So far I can't find any information regarding CSPI's claim that school funds haven't suffered after replacing soft drinks with juice and water.

I'm not convinced that CSPI is only aimed at the nutritional choices of elementary school age children.

[DrDeth]

Originally posted by tracer

Disgusting? You mean, you don't like "hot dog on buttered bun" and "roast leg of surprise" and "spaghetti and meatballs that have been sitting in a Number 10 Can for 2 years"?

Oh God yes! I remember that as a "special treat" they woudl have "hot dog day". How can one screw up a hot dog you would think? Well, by the condiments. Instead of a choice between mustard, ketchup, mayo or relish- they mixed all of those up together and you had a choice of "plain" or "with sickening glop". (here, we need an "ecch" smilie)

Note that a standard replacement for Coke is "juice boxes"- many of whom with their "5% real fruit juice!" are the same "sugar water" that 7Up is. I agree with Squink about caffiene- but there are plenty of caffiene-free sodas, and if Pepsi or Coke wants to write big checks to have their machines in our schools- fine by me. Sugar water is Sugar water, and it don't make no never mind what brand it is if your kid is going to swill it anyway.

[artemis]

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker
artemis

Paternalism: A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities.

You've omitted one point - the word almost univerally carries negative associations. The word "paternalistic" is rarely used to indicate approval of a particular action. That's certainly not the sense in which you were using it. But you were missing the point - there's noting inherently wrong with restricting the choices available to minors, indeed it's absolutely necessary that children NOT be given the same rights and responsibilities as adults, as they do not yet have mature judgement.

If they decided to reduce (but not entirely remove) the available junk food provided by elementary schools I would be amenable to that all other things being equal (i.e. if school dependence on corporate money was not an issue).

Why NOT entirely remove it? How would completely removing junk food from elementary schools harm the students? Kids aren't missing anything essential when they're denied soda or greasy/sugary high-calorie snack foods with their lunch. And they already get more than enough exposure to junk food outside the school setting in any case.

Childhood is when eating habits are formed - and once formed, those habits are hard to break. We owe it to kids to do what we can to ensure the eating habits they develop during childhood will serve them well throughout their lives. Allowing children to develop a taste for junk food because we aren't willing to restrict their supposed "freedom of choice" is doing them no favors.

(As for schools being dependent on corporate monies - the answer is to increase funding for schoools rather than capitulating to corporate interests for the sake of a few dollars.)

[Grim_Beaker]

artemis,

You've omitted one point - the word almost univerally carries negative associations. The word "paternalistic" is rarely used to indicate approval of a particular action. That's certainly not the sense in which you were using it. But you were missing the point - there's noting inherently wrong with restricting the choices available to minors, indeed it's absolutely necessary that children NOT be given the same rights and responsibilities as adults, as they do not yet have mature judgement.

I did indeed use it as a negative term and you did not misconstrue my intent. While I did not clarify which age group I was referring to in my original post I did so later by stipulating fewer choices for elementary school children and greater choices, and personal responsibility, for middle and high schoolers. I will unequivocally agree that children should not be given the same rights and responsibilities as adults.

Why NOT entirely remove it? How would completely removing junk food from elementary schools harm the students? Kids aren't missing anything essential when they're denied soda or greasy/sugary high-calorie snack foods with their lunch. And they already get more than enough exposure to junk food outside the school setting in any case.

Childhood is when eating habits are formed - and once formed, those habits are hard to break. We owe it to kids to do what we can to ensure the eating habits they develop during childhood will serve them well throughout their lives. Allowing children to develop a taste for junk food because we aren't willing to restrict their supposed "freedom of choice" is doing them no favors.

(As for schools being dependent on corporate monies - the answer is to increase funding for schoools rather than capitulating to corporate interests for the sake of a few dollars.)

The school my children attend works in a manner similar to that described by norinew. While I realize that there are probably a number (who knows how many) of schools which do not operate in this fashion I feel it is the parents right to determine what is acceptable lunch fare. That a school acts in the role of, and on behalf of, the parents in some measure does not IMO supercede the parents interest. IMO this is a fair compromise for elementary school age children. Those parents who have no objection to their children eating junk food can specifically provide funds for their children for that purpose (such as norinew's occasional use as a reward). In any case I highly doubt that soda and other typical junk foods are a regular addition to elementary school lunches.

Having said all of that I must note that those are secondary objections which take a backseat to CSPI's apparent goal of removing a measure of personal responsibility and choice from those (middle and high schoolers) who IMO should have it. In your opinion, should schools prohibit middle and high school students from consuming junk food?

[even sven]

I am probably the biggest advocate of youth rights and responsibility that you will see on this board. I firmly believe that if we treat children and teenagers with respect and allow them a good deal of freedom (and the responsibilities that come with freedom) they will rise to the occasion.

That said, I don't think schools should be in the business of selling junk food to any grade level.

Students do benefit from being able to make their own choices on a lot of things. And they have the choice to eat all the junk food they want. I could bring five bags of Doritos and a pound of marshmallows for lunch and it'd be nobody's business but my own. On most high school campuses that have any real trust and respect for their students, I could go off campus for lunch and at twenty Big Macs.

The big question is, should the school itself be providing me with Doritos and Big Macs. And I think the answer is "no".

I think students ought to be able to wear skimpy tank tops to class. However, I don't think it's trampling on anyone's personal responsibility if they don't sell skimpy tank tops at the student store. I think students that are old enough to smoke ought to be able to smoke in designated areas on their breaks, but I don't think that the school ought to sell cigarettes.

If a school does not sell junk food, kids will still have just as many choices, but the school won't facilitate the bad choices. I think that is totally fair.

[artemis]

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker
In your opinion, should schools prohibit middle and high school students from consuming junk food?

Depends on how you define 'prohibit'. Should middle schools and high schools ban all junk food from the premises? No. If a student brings in junk food in his/her lunch bag, the student should be permitted to eat it. Should middle schools and high schools allow the sale of junk food on their premises? In my opinion, absolutely not (for the reasons even sven has already stated). Why make it easier than it already is for kids to eat a bad diet?

[even sven]

I've decided that students should be allowed to organize a co-op style snack bar or store to sell junk food.

[IUHomer]

I am all for banning junk food in schools. With the explosion in childhood diabetes in the last 20 years, I find it hard to justify the "Its their choice" argument.

However, that doesn't really solve the underlying problem. The truth is getting rid of the junk food won't help if the other food available sucks or is unhealthy. I think thats the case in most schools. Most school cafeteria food, unless it has changed in the last decade or so since I was in high school, which I highly doubt, is also either unhealthy or just gross. The whole system needs to be revamped.

And don't let kids leave for lunch. I was never allowed to leave. I am surprised that kids anywhere are allowed to leave. Just make them stay. That seems like a logical step for a number of reasons, the least of which is more bad food options.

[Meeko]

I started off Reading the posts, then skimming. I understand the idea of a Contract for a school district, and it gets to the heart of the problem. Money is the reason for all of it. I read that some one said "has no need for that choice" I dont follow... I can't comprehend not needing a choice I mean, I didnt think you can need a choice... its going to happen or it isnt.

In Short, Money is the reason, "real" food is higher in cost than "junk" so resell in non contracted situations is high, other times The school and the company works out the funds, in a win win situation. I live in GA, and nonsurprisingly, my Highschool was contracted to Coke. Same for my Junior College... but if you brought it on campus, it wasn't a problem.

A side note on Soda Contracting, the late 1990's Cartoon "Daria" (Owned by Viacom, seen on MTV and Recently "Noggin/The N") has an entire episode based on this concern. "Fizz Ed" The episode in short takes the school to from increased funding from the contract all the way to a branding/advertising nightmare.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

I've never been one to believe that all children turn into hyperactive consumerist monsters the minute junk food is entered into the equation.

When I was but a fledgling Idiot, my school had two options: junk food and nameless gov't slop. Naturally, I ate more of the junk food due to having no other option. This is probably still the case today.

In my opinion, children should not eat junk food, but the increase in healthiness due to junk food being banned in schools is not worth the increased government regulation required to do it. All they'd have left is slop.

Instead, give them other options. Subsidize contracts with healthy restaurants and food suppliers. But don't get rid of the junk food, to spare the poor children living in districts where even the new food is slop. At least you know what you're getting when you buy a coke.

Disgusting? You mean, you don't like "hot dog on buttered bun" and "roast leg of surprise" and "spaghetti and meatballs that have been sitting in a Number 10 Can for 2 years"?

I was always partial to the end-of-semester "Manager's Special." The process of semi-heating pizza, leaving it out for a few hours, freezing it for 3 months, then semi-heating it again gave it a peculiar aroma that I remember to this very day.

And the Jello. It takes creativity to really ruin jello, let me tell you.

[Isabelle]

Should be some what restricted…children are not of an age to exercise correct judgment over such things…

Free market is no good…why not use the same argument to sell the cigarettes or drugs?...because it harms kids…

Likewise, excess offers of junk food harm them…it’s a school board issue, since not all areas are
Created equal...

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by DrDeth
Oh God yes! I remember that as a "special treat" they woudl have "hot dog day". How can one screw up a hot dog you would think? Well, by the condiments. Instead of a choice between mustard, ketchup, mayo or relish- they mixed all of those up together and you had a choice of "plain" or "with sickening glop". (here, we need an "ecch" smilie)

My worst memory of school lunch was from 6th grade. It was pizza day, but someone had decided that the definition of "pizza" included large chunks of diced vegetables. (However nutritious celery might be, it has no business on pizza.)

I filed out to the lunch line with the rest of my class, returned to my seat, looked at the sorry excuse for a meal on my tray, and decided not to eat it... but the hag of a substitute teacher--who, as far as I could tell, was not my mother--actually punished me for not eating my "lunch".

Note that a standard replacement for Coke is "juice boxes"- many of whom with their "5% real fruit juice!" are the same "sugar water" that 7Up is.

Even 100% real fruit juice is basically sugar water with trace vitamins.