Proposal Urging Schools To Ban Junk Food Stirs Attacks
An influential senator’s proposition to encourage schools to prohibit the sale of sugary drinks and other unhealthy snacks in school buildings is facing strong opposition from school administrators and the soft-drink industry. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, introduced the provision as part of his proposed legislation to renew the Child Nutrition Act and the federal school-lunch and -breakfast programs. The proposal does not mandate any changes and still allows local authorities to make their own policies regarding snack-food sales.
However, the aim of the proposal is to discourage the relationship between schools and companies that can provide significant financial support to financially struggling schools. Senator Leahy’s amendment would encourage schools to establish rules and policies that exceed the minimum requirements set by the federal government regarding such sales. The proposal would also direct the Agriculture Department to recommend guidelines that schools can use to ban unhealthy food. Under current federal law, schools participating in the federal school-lunch program can sell “competitive foods” anywhere in the school except during lunch periods. Many secondary schools have vending machines that offer these foods throughout the day. Companies like Coca-Cola, for example, want to maintain this current arrangement and are lobbying against the Leahy proposal.
Supported by the National Soft Drink Association and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Coca-Cola has been actively lobbying schools across the country to write to Congress and oppose Senator Leahy’s proposed act. Coca-Cola argues that the act would reduce the much-needed revenue generated from the sale of soft drinks, which schools heavily rely on.
While vending machines are typically off-limits to elementary school students, almost all secondary schools have vending machines, according to Richard A. Kruse, the director of government relations for the National Association of Secondary School Principals. A recent survey conducted by the association found that 86 percent of secondary schools have food vending machines, and the profits from these sales can range between $900 and $40,000 a year for a school. For instance, L.D. Bell High School in the suburbs of Dallas and Fort Worth earns over $15,000 a year from its 12 vending machines for its 1,800 students. These earnings support various activities and programs such as math, physics, and computer teams, academic-excellence awards, extended-day programs, and teacher professional development. Principal E. Don Brown states that without the revenue from vending machine sales, these programs would likely be cut. Similarly, Montgomery Blair High School in Montgomery County, Maryland, uses the profits from their vending machines to purchase computers, textbooks, and other supplies that their budget would not typically cover. The school earns over $20,000 annually from their approximately 20 machines. Bottlers typically manage the soft-drink machines and give schools a percentage of the gross sales each month. Schools can earn up to 23 cents on a 50-cent soda.
Supporters of Senator Leahy’s proposal, including the Clinton Administration, the American School Food Service Association, the National PTA, and other education groups, argue that profits should not come at the expense of student health. Senator Leahy emphasizes the importance of protecting children and states that there are alternative sources of revenue for after-school activities. The A.S.F.S.A. legislative chairwoman, Marilyn Hurt, highlights that it is difficult for food-service officials to promote healthy eating habits when unhealthy food options are readily available in school. She explains that it is easy for students to access these foods and that they have become popular trends among students.
The state of West Virginia implements certain restrictions on the sale of sugary beverages, candy, chewing gum, and flavored ice bars within schools. Additionally, they plan to introduce a new regulation next year, which will prohibit the sale of any items that contain more than eight grams of fat per one-ounce serving.
It is important to note that the soft-drink industry denies being solely driven by profit. According to Mr. Davis, a representative of the industry, they generate a substantial $47-billion-a-year. Even if soft drinks were no longer sold in schools, they would still maintain their substantial revenue. Mr. Davis also noted that bottlers often provide significant donations to schools, estimating that the average bottler contributes materials worth $115,000 annually.
However, Mr. Kruse challenges the motives of school food-service officials who support the proposal put forth by Senator Leahy. He believes that their concerns lie in the financial gains generated from student purchases in the school-lunch lines. On a different note, Mr. Davis argued before the Senate panel that there is no scientific evidence suggesting that soft drinks are incompatible with a healthy diet.
Senator Leahy swiftly responded to Mr. Davis’ claim, comparing it to the previous attempt to classify ketchup as a vegetable. Senator Leahy’s committee is expected to finalize their bill early next month. The House Education and Labor Committee has already considered a similar bill, albeit without a provision similar to Mr. Leahy’s proposal.
