The Increasing of Vending Machine Regulation in Public Schools - Essay Example

VENDING MACHINES What is more important than the health of children? Their health is vital to our future. It is a commonly held belief that health islinked to environment, and because children spend a great deal of time in schools, it follows that the quality of their school environment and the things they do at school will have a great influence on their overall health. Although it is somewhat difficult to solve problems like bullying—problems children may face in the hurly burly of social interaction—it is quite possible to influence their health through nutrition and dietary policy. One major problem regarding children’s health is the huge quantity of sugary and high calorie food that is available to them at school. Vending machines are not supervised so it is hard to stop children from eating or drinking as much of these types of food or drink as they want. And since children don’t know what is best for them, this can often be a lot. A number of recent studies have shown the negative role vending machines play in children’s health, and in this essay I will look at some of their arguments. Part of the reason why the issue of vending machines is on the radar these days is because obesity is becoming more and more of a problem in the United States. Obesity can lead to diseases like Type-2 Diabetes. According to Amy Virus, a registered dietitian, “[m]iddle schools students are at particular risk, because they are going through puberty, their physical activity and dietary habits are fluctuating . . .”1 It doesn’t help that there is temptation around every corner, with as many as 75 per cent of middle schools possessing vending machines which sell sugary drinks and fatty snacks. With all the emotion going on in their lives, it is not surprising that children going through puberty might reach out to enjoy some “comfort food.” Some might call them “comfort foods,” but others might call them “competitive foods,” as the U.S. Department of Agriculture does. These are “foods offered at school other than meals served through USDA school mean programs—school breakfast, school lunch, and after-school snack programs.”2 Because the USDA is responsible to parents and taxpayers, it is careful to provide healthy options for school meals. Plus, this food is being given out by employees and teachers. If a student comes back to the cafeteria for a fourth helping of food, the staff can easily say, “You’ve had enough to eat.” But those who stock vending machines aren’t responsible to anyone: they just want to make a lot of money. Plus, when have you ever heard a vending machine say to a customer, “I think you’ve eaten enough chocolate today”? The truth is that these competitive foods have almost no value and are bad for children. A survey of vending machines across the country showed that “75 percent of the drinks and 85 percent of the snacks sold are of poor nutritional value. The study of 1,420 vending machines in 251 schools, was organized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.”3 Most of the drinks were colas or sports drinks—all with lots of sugar. It was hard to find water or fruit juice. Most of the food was candy or potato chips. If it were the case that kids enjoyed just one of these drinks a day (already perhaps too much) and then had a good meal in the cafeteria that might not be so bad. But as Senator Tom Harkin, a big critic of vending machines in schools, argues, “Junk foods in school vending machines compete with, and ultimately undermine, the nutritious meals offered by the federal school lunch program.”4 Students end up eating potato chips for lunch, instead of a healthy salad. Nobody wins. How did this situation come to be? It is hard to know the truth, although it is clear that politicians are happy to blame one another. According to Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, a Democrat from California, President Bush’s education policy called No Child Left Behind is responsible for the mess. She thinks that schools became so underfunded because of cuts, that they needed to bring in private companies to feed the students.5 It is certainly true that schools make a lot of money from what is sold in vending machines. If a school board signs a deal to exclusively sell Pepsi in the vending machines in their schools, for example, they can get several million dollars up front. They then get a commission of the sales. An article on the subject also says that soft drink companies provide “athletic scoreboards that bear its advertising logos and [have] donated thousands of cases of free beverages to the district.”6 The money these companies give is of course very useful. It probably goes to buying new books and equipment and in some cases providing a better education to students. But when the soft drink company has signs up everywhere in the school and the students keep getting fatter, it is probably a good time to step back and think about cause and effect. Fortunately, some school districts in some states are doing this. They are starting by making their cafeteria food more healthy. In 2002, Tennessee and Hawaii enacted legislation urging schools to offer more calcium-rich foods and beverages, and encourage calcium intake, especially in young women. Arizona, Maryland, Missouri and Oklahoma introduced bills to establish state agency or school food contract purchasing preferences of high-calcium foods and beverages.7 The federal government has also made this an important priority. Not only did Senator Harkin and Congresswoman Woolsey introduce legislation to try to give USDA more power to control the nutrition standards in school, other politicians are getting in on the act. Senator Patrick Leahy wants to prohibit selling food that has a very low nutritional value. This too sounds like a good idea. Part of the reason for opposition to these plans from schools might be the idea that they will lose money from the up front fee they get from companies and the commissions they get too. While this is an understandable concern, it is not necessarily true that just because vending machines are banned or are forced to sell only nutritional food, the school districts will lose money. Apparently, says the Centre For Science in the Public Interest, schools boards can still do good financially by “doing good.” A health and physical education coordinator at a Mississippi school that has changed its vending machines to more healthy food says, says, “Though many assume that vending machines will only be profitable if they are stocked with junk foods, we have not seen a loss in revenue by switching to healthier options . . .”8 This is good news as it shows that it is possible to be healthy and not lose money. Even if it turned out that school boards lost a little money, they should still be smart enough to know that the health of students should be their number one concern. Selling out their health just for a few more dollars or a new scoreboard in the gym is not an idea that many parents would be happy about. Fortunately, it looks like the trend it now towards making food more nutritious and cracking down on sugary drinks and high-calorie foods sold in vending machines. Of course, none of this talk about cracking down on vending machines makes the National Soft Drink Association very happy. This is a lobby group that tries to convince politicians that vending machines are good for kids and that more of them should be allowed in schools. Of course, they are motivated by profit, not the best interest of students. They see they have a big market in schools and that they are making lots of money. Of course, they will try to do whatever they can to protect their money. When they heard of all of the plans to ban vending machines, they struck back saying that attacking soft drinks is just “politically popular” and that it is unfair to make them the “poster child” for obesity. They say: Policymakers who are seeking restrictions on the sale of soft drinks are ignoring the single most important action that could make a real difference—they could demand that their schools implement the Surgeon General’s recommendation that every school-aged child in grades K-12 received at least 60 minutes of physical activity every day.9 It is a good idea for kids to have a lot of physical activity, and it is nice that the National Soft Drink Association reminds people that this is important. However, if kids do physical activity and still drink a lot of sugary drinks, the physical activity is not going to do them much good. It is better they have gym class and no soft drinks than just one or the other. Although there are still thousand of vending machines across the country selling sugary drinks and food with little or no nutritional value, it appears that things are changing slowly. Obesity is more and more of a concern, and many scientists and doctors strongly urge that all of these drinks be removed from schools.10 Now that politicians and parents have recognized the problem, schools are starting to sell more nutritious foods, and soft drink companies, for example, are on the defensive. Although schools may make money from these companies, it is increasingly being proven that it is possible to make money by selling healthy foods and drinks too. As long as this continues in this way, American’s children will hopefully get healthier. Bibliography Brown, Marilyn. “Soft Drink Fall Pop Quiz.” Tampa Tribune. July 11, 2008. Colwell, Carolyn. “Vending Machines Found in Most Middle Schools.” HealthDay. October 6, 2008. Field, Daley. “LA Schools close the book on soda.” Market Watch. September 2002. Kaufman, L. Jeanne. “Vending Machines and Competitive Foods in Schools.” NSCL Legal Brief. April/May 2003. Squires, Sally. “Panel: School Junk Food Must Go.” Washington Post. April 26, 2007. “School Vending Machines ‘Dispensing Junk.’” Center For Science in the Public Interest. May 11, 2004. Read More