« Pushing Prescriptions | Blog Index | Global Warming Debate Suppressed »
Banning Junk Food from Schools
The war against junk food is as quixotic as ever:
The days when children consume two orders of French fries in the school cafeteria and call it lunch may be numbered. A bipartisan group in Congress plans to introduce legislation today that would prohibit the sale in school not only of French fries but also of other fatty or sugary foods, including soft drinks.That's from the New York Times. Anyone who believes that Congress will actually manage to ban junk food from schools—including junk food from vending machines—should save their optimism for Powerball or some other reasonable venture. Back in May of 2004, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced a measure that would merely develop nutritional guidelines for school vending machines. Guidelines. That's all. But no. Four Democrats sided with eight Republicans to defeat the measure.
Is the junk food lobby really that powerful? Consider the evidence: In June of 2005, Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell vetoed a bill that would've rid Connecticut schools of junk food, despite widespread parental approval. Guess who opposed the measure? Two months earlier, Kentucky had just barely managed to squeak out a bill that banned soda from elementary schools—anything more stringent would never have passed. Arizona had to make the same compromise in April. Members of Congress who oppose federal regulations on junk food always say that these issues should be matters of "local control." But local legislatures are powerless in the face of our Frito-Lay overlords, evidently.
At any rate, the Times piece helpfully swats down some arguments against nutritional standards—namely, that they'll cost schools revenue or that kids won't eat healthy food. But it's less clear that nutritional regulations in schools will get anywhere close to the root of the junk-food problem—namely, that large agribusinesses have managed to hijack the entire system of food production in the United States and secure themselves $180 billion worth of government subsidies enabling them create utter crap on the cheap. Against that sort of tide, a few dams in the cafeteria won't do very much.
Posted by Bradford Plumer on 04/06/06 at 3:44 PM | E-mail | Print
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://161.58.185.225/mb/mb-backtracks.cgi/595
Comments
If it were up to the parents, there would be only healthy food choices in the schools.
Another reason to homeschool . . . control of one's child(ren)'s diet.
When I was a child, the only food available was in the cafeteria, and then only at lunchtime. There were no vending machines. There was the opportunity at my elementary school to purchase an ice cream bar, but only after showing an empty cafeteria tray to the ice cream case monitor. (I made a good living at the time, eating other people's spinach for a fee!)
In my high school, one could buy a candy bar or a donut from the bookstore--but only during a limited time period.
It would not be that hard to put good nutritious food in schools. See "Supersize Me" for suggestions!
Posted by: HoosierNan on 04/07/06 at 1:20 PM
Are tater tots considered junk food too?
Soda ban? Definitely. Fries too. But lay off the tots.
Posted by: alex2012 on 04/08/06 at 12:01 PM
First of all schools have no business banning junk food, though I think it is perfectly acceptable to refuse to sell it on school grounds. The HS where I teach has just finally stepped up and pulled out all the hi sugar drink machines, because they encourage unhealthy eating habits. Logic dictates that the rest is up to the parents, and unfiortunately the FDA, which in the current administration is worse than useless.
After 16 years of dealing with adolescents, which I greatly enjoy by the way, all I can say is that the best way to get them to DO something is to tell them they can't. Our eating habits are a self-destructive, corporate greed driven phenomenon, and unless we start dealing with those issues at their source, we will continue to produce "public policy" pretense like the laws that criminalize smoking in public places while continuing to allow tobacco companies to facilitate the assisted suicides of 150,000 Americans each year.
We need to move beyond the paternalistic "because I said so" basis of law making and start dealing with the companies that manufacture, distribute and aggressively market this stuff. We are NOT a Capitalist nation, we are a Democratic one. Let's start the ball rolling by overturning the ridiculous Court "precedent" that allowed Corporations to be recognized under the law as entitled to all the Constitutional rights of individuals without any of the tax liabilities or responsibilities to even common decency.
Time to stop treating the symptoms and go after the disease.
Posted by: Ed Uecker on 04/08/06 at 12:09 PM
ARCHIVE
October 1, 2006 - October 7, 2006
September 24, 2006 - September 30, 2006
September 17, 2006 - September 23, 2006
September 10, 2006 - September 16, 2006
September 3, 2006 - September 9, 2006
August 27, 2006 - September 2, 2006
August 20, 2006 - August 26, 2006
August 13, 2006 - August 19, 2006
August 6, 2006 - August 12, 2006
July 30, 2006 - August 5, 2006
April 23, 2006 - April 29, 2006
April 16, 2006 - April 22, 2006
April 9, 2006 - April 15, 2006
March 26, 2006 - April 1, 2006
March 19, 2006 - March 25, 2006
March 12, 2006 - March 18, 2006
March 5, 2006 - March 11, 2006
February 26, 2006 - March 4, 2006
February 19, 2006 - February 25, 2006
February 12, 2006 - February 18, 2006
February 5, 2006 - February 11, 2006
RECENT COMMENTS
Texas to DC: Don't Fence Me In (2)
Clarence Smart wrote:
Thank you, Eleanor! My thoughts exactly!
...
[more]
Supreme Court Declines to Take Up Sex Toys (1)
Clarence Smart wrote:
Do they grow cucumbers in Texas? ...
[more]
Woodward, Kissinger, Vietnam--Let's Do The Time Warp Again (2)
john wrote:
1938 was over 50 years ago. Like the “world’s greatest g...
[more]
Foley Now In Deeper Trouble (3)
john wrote:
Kathleen, you are forgetting that 50% of the population ar...
[more]
And the Next Secretary General Is... (2)
airtravel wrote:
airtravel...
[more]
Predatory Payday Lenders Ground Thousands of Troops (2)
car loan wrote:
car loan...
[more]
Turn Up the Propaganda, Please (1)
Joe DeLibertas wrote:
Here WE Go Again:
We're not fooling anyone particularly s...
[more]
They've known about Foley for almost a YEAR? (3)
M Baley wrote:
It looks like the Congress will now have to get together ...
[more]
Foley Resigns Over Sexually Explicit Emails (Or, "...sick sick sick sick sick.") (4)
seattledem wrote:
Typical Republican ...
[more]
Remember the Anthrax Investigation? (9)
Dr.Q wrote:
by having antrax identified of an specific strain tells me...
[more]
Movable Type 3.33
Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org
U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records
www.PublicRecordsInfo.com
Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com
Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as
Well as County Property Records Search.
www.PublicRecordsIndex.com














The sins of the father (or mother) shouldn't be visited on the child, so how is it that 79% (SEVENTY-NINE PERCENT) of the diet soft drinks tested by the FDA from '95 to '01 were contaminated with benzene levels above fed. safety standards. Benzene is a known carcinogen.
And what about artificial food colorings--right off the bat, I know that FD & C yellow #5 (tartrazine) has been linked to hyperactive behavioral disorders in children. Tartrazine is commonly found in prepared breakfast cereals, gelatin deserts, dry drink powders, candy, ice cream, spaghetti, canned fruit, yogurt, bakery products, pudding, ect., with even higher levels found in Fruit Loops, Doritos, ect.
Tywardreath School in Cornwall, UK, imposed a tempory ban on tartrazine in school lunches for a week in 2001. The headmaster, Gordon Walker, noted that the children were calmer, "I have noticed a change in children over that time, in terms of behavior and concentration ... I think food additives have a lot to do with it."
In fact, one study found that such behavioral changes parallel dosage levels of tartrazine; both the magnitude and duration of adverse behavioral effects increased with the dye's dosage levels. When the children were not given the chemical, however, they all behaved normally (Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 125, p. 691).
So..., it's no big surprise that in the US approximately 600,000 toddlers (age 5 and under) get a daily dose of organophosphate pesticides that exceeds the acute "safe" dose (an analysis of 1998 US Dept. of Agri.'s Pesticide Data Program on Pesticide Residues, Charles M. Benbrook, PhD).
And so..., shouldn't we be just a little bit scared (or a whole lot) about how last month the House of Reps. approved a positively evil food products bill which would wipe out state laws that mandate local inspections and require safety labels on food products to warn consumers about everything from mercury in fish to pesticides in vegetables. The bill was backed by the food industry and supported by several key lawmakers whose family members or close friends are food industry lobbyists!!!
Posted by: Michael L. Wagner on 04/07/06 at 11:50 AM