Soda Banned in Schools

Fox News ^

[ejroth]

School Soda Ban •Major Soda Brands Agree to Halt Sales to Public Schools The nation's largest beverage distributors have agreed to halt nearly all soda sales to public schools, according to a deal announced Wednesday by the William J. Clinton Foundation. Under the agreement, the companies have agreed to sell only water, unsweetened juice and low-fat milks to elementary and middle schools, said Jay Carson, a spokesman for former President Bill Clinton. Diet sodas would be sold only to high schools Cadbury Schweppes PLC, Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and the American Beverage Association have all signed onto the deal, Carson said, adding that the companies serve "the vast majority of schools." The American Beverage Association represents the majority of school vending bottlers. The deal follows a wave of regulation by school districts and state legislatures to cut back on student consumption of soda amid reports of rising childhood obesity rates. Soda has been a particular target of those fighting obesity because of its caloric content and popularity among children.

[bkepley]

I don't really care whether they sell pop or not. I just think it's funny that they think they need to monitor what the kids eat and drink.

Duh..wonder why they would think that.

[bobjam]

Apparently not a lot since it's the coke distributors who have decided to stop selling rather than our benevolent government deciding not to allow the sales.

My question is whether the distributors were paying a fee to the school boards for the ability to operate vending machines.

[joesnuffy]

It's a health issue donchaknow....

Soda Pop...vs the Homosexual Lifestyle...

Soda Pop is the obvious choice of things that must go and what should remain....

[maryz]

We never had soda in the schools when I was growing up. Why should we have that freakin' fizzy sugar water in schools?

IIRC, the vending machines got in because the schools would get a cut of sales.

Someone noted on another thread that sales at the convenience stores that abound near most schools will likely skyrocket.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The amount of control people are willing to give up to government is amazing. Even small things like what refreshment we may consume are controlled."

School lunches have existed for decades, and somebody in authority decides the menus. That's just the way it is. Soda happens to be a major contributor to obesity and Type-2 diabetes, so eliminating it from schools is a good idea, even if liberals are behind it. I hate to think that there is something in conservatism that is against a healthy diet. If so, that is an argument against conservatism.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I've never thought it was a good idea to have soda in the schools, and the politics of whose idea it was to get rid of it is irrevelant."

I agree - see post 45. I think that conservatives should be as concerned about their children's health as liberals are, and excessive consumption of soda is VERY bad for health. It is arguably the most damaging thing in our diet.

[mysterio]

Conservatism is not about removing choices and personal responsibility because the nanny state feels people are too stupid to have freedom. You've been duped.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Conservatism is not about removing choices and personal responsibility because the nanny state feels people are too stupid to have freedom. You've been duped."

Public schools exist, and they have lunchrooms, and it is nothing new that those lunchrooms have a menu that includes some things and excludes others. This is not about the "nanny state," about giving radical new power to the government, but using the government's existing authority to make better choices about what is offered in school lunch menus, to protect the health of children. I am not a food prude who things people should never have sweets, but it is very unhealthy for children to drink soda as an everyday drink with virtually every meal. In case you haven't noticed, there is a virtual epidemic of obesity and Type-2 diabetes in this country, and it is affecting people at a younger age every year. I am not prepared to concede that protecting the health of children is a liberal issue that conservatives should oppose. I think it's silly and reactionary to oppose healthy lunches in schools.

[mysterio]

It is nothing more than an extension of the war on smokers. This is the beginning of a war on obesity that will see government making many food choices for us and trying to control the way we eat. Government cares more about these issues now because we demanded they pay for our health care. So we have given government a blank check to try and control our unhealthy habits.

If you think any of this is about health, you've been duped again. It's about money, power, and control. The well of smokers is running dry, so now they have to drill a new one. These are just the first tentacles of that monster.

[Libertarian444]

Hooray! Public schools have failed at teaching kids how to read, write, or do arithmetic, but I know I'll sleep better tonight knowing that they won't be drinking any 7-Up or Pepsi. </sarc>

[Zeddicus]

If you think any of this is about health, you've been duped again. It's about money, power, and control.

Yes, it IS about money, power, and control. Removing soda machines from the schools PUTS the money, power, and control back in the hands of the parents, where it belongs.

You want your kid to drink soda at school? Fine. Send her to school with two cans of Coke in her backback. Those of us who care a bit more about our kids' nutrition will still send water or juice, or let them buy milk at the cafe, without having to worry about them being tempted to spend their salad-bar money in the junk-drink machine.

[Steve_Seattle]

"This is the beginning of a war on obesity that will see government making many food choices for us and trying to control the way we eat."

I'll reiterate - government has always decided what to serve in public school lunchrooms. This is simply a case of government making better choices, not of government assuming new powers.

[mysterio]

God forbid a child have a decision to make about what kind of drink to purchase at school. How could they be expected to take on that kind of responsibility? Maybe this freedom thing is just too dangerous. You guys might be right.

[Steve_Seattle]

"This is the beginning of a war on obesity that will see government making many food choices for us and trying to control the way we eat."

A governmental "war on obesity" might contain elements that I would support, and elements I would oppose. I would strongly oppose lawsuits against fast food restaurants, for example, but I strongly support labeling laws that tell you exactly what the nutritional content of food is. As a borderline diabetic, I find that information very important and useful.

[mysterio]

I don't support the war on smoking or the war on obesity. I think people should be allowed to consume what products they choose to consume.

[Steve_Seattle]

"God forbid a child have a decision to make about what kind of drink to purchase at school. How could they be expected to take on that kind of responsibility? Maybe this freedom thing is just too dangerous. You guys might be right."

I think that most conservatives believe that government should lead by example, and that the schools should provide good role models and teach proper values. I see nothing whatsoever improper about the public schools providing the students with firm instruction about what constitutes a good diet, and this includes not offering food choices that are demonstrably harmful to health.

[Mase]

If you think any of this is about health, you've been duped again. It's about money, power, and control

You hit the nail on the head mysterio. This is just the first step. Next they'll be telling parents what can and can't be be brought to school for consumption. Once again, we surrender and look to government to protect us from our unhealthy lifestyle and to ensure we're eating what they deem is proper. Schools promoting low fat milk for children is just one of many examples that the state has no idea what it's doing when it comes to nutrition. This is absolutely about control.

I for one, would much rather ignorant parents make bad decisions for their kids than entrust the state to make those decisions for them by subordinating parental responsibility and control.

The junk food tax is just around the corner and then, after the government gets their windfall, they'll cut loose the trial lawyers to fill their pockets, ruin products and raise prices for all consumers.

Save me from the people who would save me from myself!

[zook]

Don't know. No one ever monitored what I ate in school. We had all kinds of rich foods, whole milk, ice cream, etc., and we seemed to be just fine.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I don't support the war on smoking or the war on obesity. I think people should be allowed to consume what products they choose to consume."

I think people should be allowed to smoke and eat unhealthy food. But I don't think children should be allowed to smoke in school, and I don't think school lunches should offer junk food.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Don't know. No one ever monitored what I ate in school. We had all kinds of rich foods, whole milk, ice cream, etc., and we seemed to be just fine."

The problem is, we weren't just fine. We were in the process of developing Type-2 diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.