Banning Bad Choices

[The Straight Story]

Banning Bad Choices
Congress should pass legislation that bans the sale of unhealthy food in public schools
Published On Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:09 PM
By THE CRIMSON STAFF

According to the American Heart Association, nearly one in five American children between the ages of 6 and 11 are overweight. Perhaps that statistic doesn’t resound as much as it should—it means that nearly one in five children today are already on track for developing type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, sleep apnea, and the whole glut of diseases and disorders associated with obesity. If America’s dire obesity epidemic is to be contained, decisive action must be taken in the interest of the public health, starting with policies that encourage children and adolescents to develop healthy habits that will last a lifetime. It is admirable, therefore, that federal lawmakers have recently proposed legislation that recognizes the government’s responsibility in the fight against childhood obesity.

If passed, an amendment appended to a $268 billion farm bill would impose a federal ban on the selling of unhealthy snacks—such as candy and soda—in public school snack bars, vending machines, and à la carte cafeteria lines. Food would be vetted based on levels of saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. The measure will also set restrictions on the calorie content of drinks sold in public high schools, while imposing even stricter limitations on drinks sold in public elementary and middle schools, allowing for the sale of only bottled water and low-fat milk and juice.

We are heartened that the amendment, chiefly sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), has bipartisan support, likely a reflection of the public’s growing concern over our children’s preference for the abundance of readily available, sugary and salty food in our schools. According to a report released by the Government Accountability Office in 2005, 99 percent of public high schools, 97 percent of middle schools, and 83 percent of elementary schools have either vending machines or snack bars that offer primarily unhealthy snacks. This is because many schools and large food and beverage producers, like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, have reached agreements by which both parties profit when schools sell a particular company’s brands.

The health of our schoolchildren, however, is far too high a price to pay for increased school revenue. Just as it would be ludicrous for high schools to sell cigarettes during lunch, it is ridiculous that 83 percent of elementary schools are making a profit on the sale of fattening snacks. Naturally, good eating habits must be developed and nurtured at home, but parents have little control over how children use their lunch money at school. When given freedom of choice, few children can be relied upon to make well-informed decisions that prioritize their long-term health. The legislators backing this bill should be applauded for recognizing that the government has a moral imperative to encourage smart dietary choices and halt the alarming spread of childhood obesity.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521102

[killbotfactory]

1. What choice are we banning?

Right now they have the choice of unhealthy school food, unhealthy snacks, or bring something from home. What kind of choice is that? We shouldn't allow direct marketing to children, and we sure as hell shouldn't tolerate junk food on the school campus. We are supposed to be teaching these kids what is healthy for them, not pandering to their base desires created by addictive, unhealthy foods and the billion dollar propaganda campaigns that pimp that crap to our children.

[NeedleCast]

2. Nanny-State Laws

makes me sad.

[Phx_Dem]

4. You know that "nanny-statism" is a RW frame?

Do you have a problem with the Gov. restricting young people's access to tobacco and alcohol? Or is that nanny-statism also?

[Mythsaje]

5. No, it's an anti-authoritarian frame.

The RWers just adopted it as if they had a right to it. They're just as bad with it.

[ixion]

7. the nanny state is more than a frame...

it is quickly becoming the de facto standard for day to day living.

[Phx_Dem]

8. Yeah--that's also what the Cato Institute thinks

Nanny State Makes Poor Babysitter for Americans

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6408

[NeedleCast]

12. A bad idea is a bad idea

whether adopted by the right or the left. nanny-statism is the idea that we should let to government make decisions for us. It's the idea that the world is a bad, scary place that only the government can protect us from. It is the surrendering of freedom for a feeling (and only a feeling) of safety and well being.

As to your question, there's quite a bit of evidence to support a claim that alcohol is going to get a teen killed a LOT faster than a soda and a pack of Cool Ranch Doritos. My folks gave me a $1.25 for lunch every day I went to high school. That was the going price of the hot lunch back then. Wouldn't have gotten me far at the vending machines, so if I wanted to eat, I spent my money on the hot lunch (okay, I won't lie, I saved it and spent it on baseball cards and didn't eat lunch half the time). More, tobacco and alcohol are both known to be addictive substances. I guess it can be argued that caffeine is too, but at the end of the day if I had a kid and the choice were to allow him access to a bottle of coke or a bottle of jager, I'd got with the coke.

My real fear here is that there are groups out there who want to see this ban applied to far more than schools. I see schools as their "foot in the door" to a much broader banning.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Well, that makes sense. Schools should be

encouraging children to eat unhealthily because encouraging them to drink would be even worse for them.

[NeedleCast]

16. I don't think schools should encourage them to do either

However, the sale of Cool Ranch Doritos to minors is not illegal.

[Occam Bandage]

18. By providing them with Doritos, schools are encouraging them to eat Doritos.

They are not making it illegal for children to purchase Doritos on their own time. We're simply suggesting not selling them Doritos.

There is a difference between "we don't think we should be encouraging this" and "we want to ban this."

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

21. So if a school has vegabales and doritos arre the not encouraging both?

[Occam Bandage]

23. Yes. I have a problem with one and not the other.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

28. A bag of doritos eaten with vegtables and other food

is fine...

Before LittleAngelsB ended up milk allergic I used to give LittleAngelA fries from time to time..

[Occam Bandage]

34. Vegetables and other food without the bag of Doritos is better.

The occasional bag isn't gonna kill 'em, no. Personally, I loved Doritos growing up. But at the same time, I don't believe public schools should be encouraging children to eat junk with every meal. I mean...like, if this were a meal plan, and kids were always served balanced meals, that would be just fine (and Doritos can certainly be part of a balanced, nutritious meal). But kids aren't being served balanced meals. They're given virtually unrestricted access. And while many kids will eat healthily (and I'm sure yours will/do), many others will be content to make junk the center of their meal.

School is a place for learning, through and through. We don't let kids choose whether they want to learn to do math or not. We don't let them choose whether they want to exercise or not (though regrettably, we're cutting back on that). I don't see why we should make the curriculum stop at the lunchroom.

[NeedleCast]

35. and that's fine

I have a problem with one (brocolli sucks) and not with the other (Doritos rule). What's not fine is when you legislate away people's freedom to choose.

(P.S. I take back what I said about brocolli. I'm sure some people enjoy it a great deal.)

[Occam Bandage]

40. We're not legislating people's freedom to choose.

There is nobody suggesting that you should not be able to go to Jewel, buy three packs of Doritos, and go home and eat those for dinner.

What we are suggesting is that we not provide that to a 10-year-old.

[NeedleCast]

29. I guess I don't see having a vending machine in the lunchroom

as encouragement. It's making it an option, but I don't know that it's encouraging it. I mean, if Mr. Johnson, the math teacher were standing in the hot lunch line going "dude, wouldn't you rather have a pack of doritos and an refreshing, ice cold coca-cola" then yeah, that would be encouraging it.

There is a difference between "we don't think we should be encouraging this" and "we want to ban this."

Butttttttttt, the author of the article in the OP does want to ban it, which I think is glaringly obvious in his headline statement that reads:

Banning Bad Choices
Congress should pass legislation that bans the sale of unhealthy food in public schools

mmmmmm, maybe it's just me, but I feel like that's pretty strong evidence that they want to ban. Worse, the article does not say what we should consider unhealthy. Yeah, Coke and Doritos and powedered-sugar doughnuts are bad for you, but where do you draw the line? Is a hot dog bad for you? Are those shitty pizzas we got that were like a four inch radius and had a speckle of cheese and a few grams of pepperoni bad for you? Shitty, yes. Bad, questionable.

[Occam Bandage]

38. You should know that

the product sells itself. By its taste (yum, fats and sugars!) and advertising, it provides a 1-2 punch of desire and reward. By providing it, and allowing children unrestricted access to it, you're encouraging it. Denial of that is denial of both consumer psychology and child psychology.

What we're discussing here isn't a "ban" in the sense you were originally implying. Deciding not to offer it in school is not a ban. Kids can still bring it from home. They can walk over to the store and buy it, if they've got a Safeway nearby or something. Private schools can serve it. And nobody would suggest restricting consumer choice in the private sector. We're talking about what public schools are choosing to serve children. Deciding what we what they want to be serving children in our schools is not nanny-statism, any more than deciding not to sell the seniors cigarettes is nanny-statism.

[NeedleCast]

55. If that's the case

maybe we should take a look at what percentage of kids are chosing the vending machine over a hot lunch or who bring in their own food. You do make a good point; if kids are still allowed to bring in their own, I have less of a problem with this. Still, I don't see the problem with giving kids a choice in this case. However, many schools don't have open campus at lunch and can't go to the Safeway or the 7-11 and buy it. For the schools that have open campus, I guess I don't see much difference in providing it at the school and having a 7-11 provide it a block away. In fact, if the school is making money off the vending machines, I'd rather them buy it at the school and put a few more cents in the education coffers.

I do think you're mistaken in that there is unrestricted access to it. Access is restricted by how much money you have in your pocket. Additionally, from what I remember about being a kid, if I had unrestricted access to something, I tended to get bored with it quickly. Anywho, I don't want to go back and forth over what does and doesn't constitute encouragement. The marketing campaigns behind these products might encourage kids to buy it, but the schools aren't running those campaigns.

nobody would suggest restricting consumer choice in the private sector.

Oh, I think plenty of people would.

[Occam Bandage]

62. I understand your concerns about preserving the notion of "choice" for children.

And certainly the ability to make good choices is a necessary skill to teach children. At the same time, it is one that must be balanced against the health of children.

I happen to believe that an appropriate balance is being struck here. You believe children ought have more of a right to be served "junk food" if they desire it than this bill allows. I don't think there's much room for debate, because it's a matter of values; I simply weight certain things differently from you, and that's okay.

My problem isn't so much with vending machines, it's the cafeterias. When children are presented with a cafeteria serving fruit, vegetables, and Cheetos as options to purchase as a side to your slice of pizza, it's gonna be the Cheetos for most kids. And I'd rather we be making the healthy stuff the "default" option, while still allowing them to eat the Cheetos if they're willing to bring them. You might consider that too draconian, and that's fair, I suppose.

Edit: No kidding, I went grocery shopping today. I bought a bag of Doritos. I haven't eaten Doritos in months, and yet I decided they looked pretty good. I bet the OP's a shareholder ;)

[MadHound]

44. Yeah, but unlike that bag of Doritos

Vegetables don't have multi-million dollar ad campaigns pushing them down kids throats everyday.

As far as "nanny statism" goes, well I guess that you're not in favor of product safety laws, food labeling, drug testing, alcohol regulation, etc. etc. on down the line. Just want to throw it all wide open for a libertarian free for all where kids can order a cold one at the local bar while their parents drive, and crash, poorly made cars out on the streets.

Frankly schools are an apt place for nanny state laws, after all, we're dealing with children here. But beyond that, since many parents aren't exerting any sort of control over what their children eat, somebody needs to. This wave of adult obesity is already causing problems in our society, and as this younger generation grows up, those problems are only going to grow worse.

I grew up in an era when there were no vending machines in our schools, back when schools were at least somewhat adequately funded. Granted, your choices were pretty limited to either what the cafeteria was serving or what you brought from home. And gee, we felt absolutely no lack for not having vending machines full of crap food on hand for us to gorge on. In fact we were a pretty fit bunch, active and healthy, with few obese children. Now you go to many, if not most schools and you find a much greater percentage of obese and unhealthy kids.

So, you want to let a generation of kids to go to hell all so that they can keep some sort of mythical right to gorge themselves on junk food while enriching corporations? That's one hell of stance you're taking there pal.

[NeedleCast]

Maybe Vegetables should try some ad campaigns

Beef! It's what's for dinner! That seemed to work fairly well. Not my job though.

As far as "nanny statism" goes, well I guess that you're not in favor of product safety laws, food labeling, drug testing, alcohol regulation, etc. etc. on down the line. Just want to throw it all wide open for a libertarian free for all where kids can order a cold one at the local bar while their parents drive, and crash, poorly made cars out on the streets.

Nope, I'm not nor have I really said anything like that. Product safety laws....mmm, depends. Kinda think it's silly that we have to put a warning label on a chain saw that says "Danger! May traumatically amputate your leg if used improperly!" 'Course that won't stop some idiot from filing suit (and winning) against a chainsaw maker when he lops an appendage off if that label were not on there. Food labeling is good. Drug testing generally bad except in cases where public safety is involved. Alcohol regulation is okay, as we're talking about a substance that can impair your abilities to not kill yourself or other people (Doritos not so much).


Frankly schools are an apt place for nanny state laws, after all, we're dealing with children here. But beyond that, since many parents aren't exerting any sort of control over what their children eat, somebody needs to.

Well that's just a terrifying attitude. Shit, why not take it one step further and just round up all the kids and let the feds raise them 'till they're 18 or 21? Good God, what kind of progressive attitude is that? Who do you supposed we should allow to do the parenting for those "bad parents" out there? You? The feds? No thanks. Some kids have shitty parents, and that sucks, but it sucks a whole lot less than any alternative I can think of. There are regulations in place to insure a level of child saftey. If some ass-clown out there were raising their child soley on a diet of doritos and Cherry Coke I certainly hope soemone would report that SOB to CPS.

So, you want to let a generation of kids to go to hell all so that they can keep some sort of mythical right to gorge themselves on junk food while enriching corporations?

So your argument here is that a generation of kids is going to go to hell because they have access to Doritos and sodas at school? I think that might be a wee bit alarmist.

[Occam Bandage]

61. Ah, yes. Vegetables should be advertising. That makes sense.

I'm sure the concept of broccoli has the funding to compete with Pepsico.

[Lilith Velkor]

56. If the teachers encourage it, the kids won't want it

:think:

[NeedleCast]

57. Hehe, that's probably true

[Phx_Dem]

39. First let's call it what it is--Social Engineering

"Social engineering is a concept in political science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behavior on a large scale, whether by governments or private groups. In the political arena the counterpart of social engineering is political engineering.

For various reasons, the term has been imbued with negative connotations. However, virtually all law and governance has the effect of changing behavior and can be considered "social engineering" to some extent. Prohibitions on murder, rape, suicide and littering are all policies aimed at discouraging perceived undesirable behaviors. In British and Canadian jurisprudence, changing public attitudes about a behavior is accepted as one of the key functions of laws prohibiting it. Governments also influence behavior more subtly through incentives and disincentives built into economic policy and tax policy, for instance, and have done so for centuries.

In practice, whether any specific policy is labeled as "social engineering" is often a question of intent. The term is most often employed by the political right as an accusation against anyone who propose to use law, tax policy, or other kinds of state influence to change existing power relationships: for instance, between men and women, or between different ethnic groups. Political conservatives in the United States have accused their opponents of social engineering through the promotion of political correctness, insofar as it may change social attitudes by defining "acceptable" and "unacceptable" language or acts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28political_science%29

Social engineering is an effective way for governments to mediate behavior--it might not sound the right populist bells but it's reality.

[Occam Bandage]

43. Sure. Let's. The purpose of school is to influence children's behaviors

and minds.

[Phx_Dem]

49. exactly right. nt

[Warpy]

11. Kids need nannies.

Adults don't.

That's the difference.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

36. We elect people to govern

Not raise our kids...

What goe on/off a school menu should be solely up to the school board..

[Occam Bandage]

14. Yeah, why even bother with schools? Stupid nannies trying to raise our kids for us.

[NeedleCast]

17. Strawman

[Occam Bandage]

20. Tell me the difference. Nanny-State refers to unreasonable intrusion on individual liberty.

You're applying it to a school deciding what it won't be serving children. If you think a school system deciding what it will be serving children is a "nanny state" as an unreasonable restriction on the children's right to individual liberty, tell me why the very notion of schools is not an affront.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

24. wooo there

"If you think a school system deciding what it will be serving children is a "nanny state" "

Im sorry the parent post was about a federal ban via the farm subsidies bill *not* a local school board deciding on what is and is not ok in their schools..

[NeedleCast]

33. Thank you sir!

Yes. Exactly.

[Occam Bandage]

42. So your problem then is with the federal government being able to set

nationwide standards of education? That's the issue?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

46. This is not a setting an education standard

Its setting a dietary standard for kids on what it legal food..

[Occam Bandage]

47. You think there's a difference?

You think there's really a huge moral difference between teaching children to exercise, to put effort into their work, to write neatly, and to eat healthily?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

59. Ahem..

Stop mis representing me... I think its well and good to teach kids all those things. I think policy as to what goes in school vending machines is best left up to school boards and not set as a last minute rider on the agricultural subsidy bill..

[The Straight Story]

52. Me too :) (nt)

[Warpy]

3. Bringing in junk food to the schools was an experiment

by school boards who were sick of seeing so much nutritious lunchroom food get thrown out at great cost when the fast food giants said they'd feed kids what they liked while giving the school boards a few extra bucks.

That experiment is a miserable failure and a whole generation of kids with adult diseases is the proof. It's time to admit that kids don't know enough to make good choices and that we need to do it for them. If they don't like what they see, they can skip it. When they get hungry enough, they'll eat it.

There were days during my kidhood when lunch was nasty and all I had was an apple. There were other days the lunch ladies actually got it right. They did introduce me to stuff my mother never made and some of it wasn't bad.

I'm all for kicking out the "choice" of grease burgers and fries in favor of real food. I'm sick of seeing kids at the local schools who are easier to step over than walk around.

[Ignis]

51. Great point, Warpy.

We tend to forget that Junk Food, Inc. has only had a stranglehold on our kids' lunches for a few decades.

It all started in the '80s with the Reaganite mantra of "Privatization Uber Alles"--and look how well that's worked out for our country!

:eyes:

[OHdem10]

6. If we could get through one election period without the Nanny

Staters giving the GOP joke material.

[zorahopkins]

9. The Only Choice Should Be A Good Choice

We are talking about children.

We do not trust these children to make choices regarding alcohol or voting.

We should not allow them to make Bad choices regarding what they are able to purchase at school.

A lot of us grew up in schools that never had vending machines for chips and other foods.

We should not compromise the health of our children in order to make corporations like PepsiCo and Coke rich.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

25. Wha...

"The Only Choice Should Be A Good Choice"

If someone else tells you 'you're only choice is X' thats not really a choice is it?

[Occam Bandage]

48. Sure, it can be.

"Children: As a side, you have a choice between mixed veggies, fruit salad, and potatoes."

That is three choices. All are good choices.

[Dora]

10. Schools make big money from junk food sales.

Good luck weaning them from the Twinkie Tit. I know it can be done, but it will take supportive, noisy parents and a school board capable of reason.

[zorahopkins]

15. Maybe They Should Sell Guns. Or Cigarettes

I know you are not arguing for the continued sale of twinkies, but I just have to say that the argument -- advanced by some school administrators -- that schools make big money from junk food sales anmd therefore MUST continue to sell junk food just makes my blood boil!!

Any money lost through giving up the sale of junk food would need to be made up through higher taxes to support the schools, and that's why so many don't want to do it. The very thought of having the public support PUBLIC schools just doesn't make sense to lots of people.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

19. Dont ban choices...

Thats not at all progressive...

If you want to hit this change the farm subsidy bill to focus a proper amount of the money on fruits and vegetables and into urban gardens..

[Occam Bandage]

22. Then why not sell cigarettes, for the seniors to purchase?

Many of them are 18. Why ban that choice?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

26. Because its not legal for *all* students in the school

And indoor smoking in state/city buildings is banned in most places.

That being said if some city somewhere had an 18+ only high-school and it was legal to smoke in public buildings... let them deal with it themselves..

[Occam Bandage]

27. So card them.

Would you be fine selling cigarettes in school cafeterias, if students were carded and they had to smoke outside?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

30. not the schools job to card kids and selling them at school

puts the school at some legal liability should those 18yo's give a smoke to their 15yo friend so no..

It is neither Illegal for a 15yo to eat junk, or for junk to be eaten in city buildings...

[Occam Bandage]

41. Also not the school's job to provide Doritos to children. See how easy it is?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

31. My bigger problem is putting this into a federal subsidy bill

There are far better things to do to such a bill to help Americans eat more healthy food.

Should a school wish to ban Doritos, more power to them...

[Occam Bandage]

45. What's the problem with that?

Because there are better things you can stick in a bill, you shouldn't do this as well? The federal government can choose where its money goes. You want to accept the federal cheese, you accept their conditions.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

53. Because its improper to tie two unrelated things together..

[Occam Bandage]

54. Welcome to Congressional politics.

If something passes as one bill that does nothing but what it's intended to, it's probably a symbolic resolution. The real stuff gets stuck in enormous package bills. That way it encounters fewer roadblocks on its way to passage.

[otherlander]

32. A federal fucking ban?

Doesn't the federal government have anything better to do with its time?

[Ron Green]

37. There are 3 sources of influence upon choices:

The Market: If you can afford it, and you want it, you get it.
The State: If it's legal, you have it. If it's illegal, you don't.
The Culture: If it's acceptable to you and your society, you do it. If it's not acceptable (immoral, in bad taste, unsustainable etc.) you don't.

The problem with the people who scream "nanny state" is that they see only personal freedom vs. government control, without understanding it's the government's DUTY to be informed by the culture - science, morality, education, good sense - as well as to allow people to follow their whims in the Free Market, and to balance both influences as laws and policy are made.

Who wants McDonald's in the school cafeteria? 1) Kids. 2) A big corporation.
Who doesn't want them there? Nanny-staters, apparently.

[Phx_Dem]

50. Very well put Ron.

The cries of nanny-statism remind me of RW politicians who make comments about how people know better how to spend their money than the government does. It's populist crap.

[nonconformist]

58. Our school system took out the soda vending machines a couple of years ago

They now have vending machines for water, juices and sports drinks only.

I fully supported that decision.

[Beetwasher]

60. For All The "Nanny Staters" Don't Ban Choice, Bullshitters

If a kid wants this junkfood, then he/she can ask his/her parents for it and they can bring it to school. Having it available in vending machines means that they can and WILL eat it w/out their parents knowledge and permission, and THAT is removing the PARENT'S choice and control about what they think is best to feed their kids.

I don't want my kids having access to this shit w/out my knowledge or permission, because they are kids and they WILL sneak it. When I was a kid, I would have done so.

There will still be plenty of choice and plenty of opportunities for kids to get their hands on this crap anyway, but school is supposed to be a SAFE, SUPERVISED and HEALTHY environment that a PARENT CAN TRUST will not expose their child to things they do not want their child exposed to, and that includes unhealthy food.