Why Vending Machines in Elementary and High Schools Need to Be Regulated - Research Paper Example

In the wake of tremendous successes regulating the tobacco industry in its sale, distribution, and marketing of harmful products, the public and the government search for a new target. As columnist William Saletan writes, “Goodbye, war on smoking. Hello, war on fat” (Saletan). There is some truth to this perception of culture wars being waged on objects, rather than the people who use those objects to excess (and consequently end up hurting themselves). This is where problems arise: when does harm committed against oneself become a matter for public intervention through government regulation? A question like this varied tremendously based on the subject and context in which one asks it; in the context of food and childhood obesity, additional complications arise, such as the ability of children to decide rationally between two alternatives relating to fattening and sugary foods available in public schools. Based on scientific facts taken from American public schools, one could argue there is reason to believe regulation of food usage among elementary- to high school-aged children is necessary. While such regulation is frequently dismissed as impractical, there are practical solutions to be considered. There is little disagreement among public officials that the food choices available to students in America’s public schools are less than ideal. According to the statistical analyses of children in Neumark-Sztainer et al. (2005), students at high schools with open campus policies are more likely to eat lunch at fast food restaurants than those with a closed campus. Likewise, students at elementary schools with snack machines are statistically more likely to purchase snack food that is characteristically high in sugar and fat. In other words, when schools expose children to foods they know to be unhealthy compared to reasonable equivalents, they expose children to the risks and hazards of regularly consuming such products in a closed environment such as a school. Cases of schools that reduced their students’ access to unhealthy foods have been proven to be successes in limiting prevalence of obesity among their student body. A vending machine is an object that provides snacks and beverage characteristically of a high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt variety. These kinds of foods are known definitively to cause health problems, especially for children of any age. Companies and private investors place these machines in schools as a way of making money; children are known to be a reliable customer of unhealthy foods, perhaps because of a weakness in judgment with regards to their health and well-being. Vending machines, like other providers of processed foods such as fast-food restaurants and the a la carte menu available in many schools, create a competitive environment in which the federally provided official school meals cannot compete, even though they are the healthier, cheaper option. Surveys of vending machines in middle schools and high schools reveal that approximately 75 percent of drinks and 85 percent of snacks sold are poor in terms of their nutritional value (CSPI). Given the prevalence of vending machines of these kinds of public schools (Kubik, Wall and Shen), primarily for the economic opportunity of the supplier, this is a shocking fact. The Department of Agriculture and the federal government retains control over the nutritional content of official school meals provided in these institutions, but is completely powerless over whether vending machines are allowed on school grounds or what exactly is put into those machines. Of 9.723 snack slots of 1,420 vending machines surveyed in one study revealed that only 26 slots of those slots contained fruits or vegetables. Ultimately, competitions between foods (federal school lunches and privately-provided options) favor the sugary, fatty, and salty alternatives that in turn cause (or at least contribute) to childhood obesity. According to the CSPI, “Obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in adolescents over the last two decades” (2004). This is indeed correlated with increases in soft drink consumption and general caloric intake within these age groups over that same time period. According to Wiecha et al. (2006), students who purchase products from vending machines located in their schools were statistically more likely to buy sugar-sweetened beverages than any other product category. By their advice, reducing dietary sugars, which in excess negatively affect the body’s ability to carry on with its normal healthy function, is attainable by reducing the use of these food sources or changing the manner in which these products are available. While some may dismiss attainment of this goal as impractical, utilizing the government to regulate and intervene in the situation is a solution that can have a positive effect in changing student access to sweetened beverages and snacks. Not only is government intervention in this case practical; it is also completely necessary given facts about how children use these products. Whether a government is responsible for regulating consumption of unhealthy products by children in public schools is an incredibly difficult question to answer. In fact, it relies on notions of what exactly the purpose of a government is. In trying to steer clear of these deeper issues, take for granted that a government ought to protect its citizens from harm. Some of these citizens include children who cannot, in all situations, provide for their own interests. But regardless of whether a government is actually responsible for regulating consumption of unhealthy products, one should realize that the government has essentially pledged to take some level of responsibility in taking steps toward a more healthy society. Representatives Lynn Woolsey and Senator Tom Harkin, for instance, proposed a measure to “help improve the quality of the food sold to students” (CSPI). This undertaking on the part of the federal government to change policies affecting unhealthy foods in schools is entirely new, but it is seen in a similar light as the fight against other products deemed harmful to individuals and society, such as cigarettes (Saletan). Because elements within the United States Congress have acted upon this issue, their action is justified under some view of the government’s responsibility to its citizens. When it comes to creating effective legislative change that will prevent the most students from sustaining the most harm from unhealthy foods being served in vending machines on their public school campus, one should look to state, not federal- or district-level, policies. According to Kubik et al. (2010), policy is an effective potential option for decreasing the amount of junk food found in schools, particularly the elementary and middle schools where childhood obesity primarily begins. To study their claims, the researchers examined whether state- or district-level nutrition policies addressing the issue of junk food in schools were correlated with lower levels of junk food in the school (both in school stores and in school vending machines). This study affirms the legitimacy of the claim that the government can take steps, particularly at the state level, to limit the effects of junk food on children. Knowing that the government can have an overall positive effect on student behavior is constructive to the case that the government ought to make that effect. To show how addressing junk food in the schools is not impractical, one might consider two policy measures (and their real-world applications) to lower the influence of vending machines on public school students. The first case is taxation on soft drinks and snacks, particularly those sold in the schools. While taxes on soft drinks and snacks have never been shown to definitively affect sales in the school, revenue generated by such a junk food tax could be substantial. Substantial gains from taxing soft drinks and snacks may be diverted to opening up appeals for more healthy eating options to children in the schools. Health promotion programs would theoretically have the same effect as heavy-handed taxes on unhealthy products, especially in a school environment where children can be easily incentivized to eat in a more wholesome manner. To the extent that a small tax would help fund health promotion, this allows those in favor of government regulation to escape objections against the effectiveness of taxation. Another potential strategy in reducing the consumption of junk food in the schools is provided by French et al. (2010), who studied various forms of interventions in bus garages. Although the researchers’ conducted their experiments in bus garages, their conclusions extend to schools, which like garages, are closed, tight buildings with limited food options. French et al. increased the availability of healthy items to 50 percent and lowered the prices of those items by at least ten percent. They discovered that greater availability and lower prices on targeted (“healthy”) foods and beverages were associated with a greater number of purchases over 18 months. In other words, subsidizing purchases of healthy options, relative to the more desirable options, led to more consumption of the healthy products. As such, it seems funding gained from taxing the unhealthy foods could be used to subsidize the prices of products that are demanded less. Additionally, investing in healthy suppliers as opposed to large, corporate providers makes healthy options more available and cheaper. Simply switching providers of vending machine products is an incredibly practical solution to bring about positive change in the continuous “war on fat”, as Saletan phrases it. Because children cannot always know what is best for them, regulation is necessary to control the supply of characteristically unhealthy processed foods and beverages in America’s public schools. To combat childhood obesity, which is reaching epidemic proportions, there must be practical solutions to satisfy critics and bring about real, quantifiable change. From the solutions proposed here, the practicality element feeds into the necessity of using government resources and power to incentivize valued behavior and limit harmful and self-destructive behaviors. Policies on the state level ought to reflect a social paradigm shift away from treating vending machines and junk food in schools as socially acceptable and begin to see exposing children to excessive amounts of sugar, fat, and salt as social ills. Works Cited CSPI. School Vending Machines “Dispensing Junk”. 11 May 2004. 4 November 2010 . French, Simone A., et al. "Pricing and Availability Intervention in Vending Machines at Four Bus Garages." Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 52:1 (2010): 29-33. Kubik, Martha Y., et al. "State but not District Nutrition Policies Are Associated with Less Junk Food in Vending Machines and School Stores in US Public Schools." Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110-7 (2010): 1043-1048. Neumark-Sztainer, Dianne, et al. "School lunch and snacking patterns among high school students: Associations with school food environment and policies." International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2:14 (2005): 1-7. Saletan, William. Junk-Food Jihad. 15 April 2006. 4 November 2010 . Wiecha, Jean L., et al. "School Vending Machine Use and Fast-Food Restaurant Use Are Associated with Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake in Youth." Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106:10 (2006): 1624-1630. Read More