It is completely inappropriate that manufacturing companies, agricultural organizations and other groups involved in marketing food are allowed to infiltrate our public schools. Just as the influence of industry on medical practice has had a negative influence on medical care, the intrusion of industry in our schools is having a negative impact on children's health.
We are all aware that junk foods are sold in cafeterias and vending machines selling soft drinks and other junk foods are in most schools. According to a survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control in 2000, 76% of public schools sell soft drinks in vending machines, with 94% of high schools and 58% of elementary schools participating.
The revenue generated by the sale of these products is one reason that things are the way they are. The other is that representatives from the companies that manufacture the products are invited to serve on important boards and committees, and become part of the process of approving and bringing these junk foods into the schools.
For example, the Senior Vice President of Public Affairs for Coke, John Downs, Jr., was offered a seat on the Parent Teacher Association's board in 2003. According to PTA personnel, Coke was endorsing the PTA, which was the reason for the appointment. Give me a break! I cannot imagine any situation in which an endorsement from Coke would be valuable to the PTA.
In 2004, Atkins Nutritionals announced a partnership with the National Education Association in which the company would help to pay for the NEA's school health website. Lest anyone think there is something wrong with this arrangement, a spokesperson for the NEA announced that Atkins was not interested in introducing its products or diet to kids. Gosh, I'm relieved that we cleared that up - for a while I thought that the reason for the web involvement was to promote the Atkins business!
The companies that market junk foods to kids are aggressive about defending their rights to do so. And the schools are wiling allies to help their cause. In 1970, Congress amended the Child Nutrition Act to allow the USDA to regulate foods that competed with the school lunch program. The schools objected since they were making money selling junk foods and Congress was pressured into rescinding this authority.
Then Congress reversed itself, passing a resolution barring the sale of items like soft drinks and candies in schools. The Soft Drink Association sued and lost in lower court but won on appeal. The Court ruled that the Child Nutrition Act did not give regulators the authority to regulate soda sales. This is where outraged parents should have stormed the schools and demanded that their kids not be tempted by junk food all day in an institution of learning, but this did not happen.
How is it that the food industry maintains its hold on legislators? The same way the drug companies do - campaign contributions. In 2002, agribusinesses contributed $54.3 million to campaigns. In the year 2000 the food and agriculture industries spent $77.5 million on lobbying alone. The argument the lobbyists make is never that the products are good for kids, but rather that they have a right to sell their products to kids in schools. And this argument works as long as parents are willing to go along with it.
Even parents who don't think marketing junk to kids in schools is a good idea are often swayed by the argument that schools need more money, and that junk foods sales are a way to generate it. I'll save the argument that increased funding does not cause the quality of education to improve for another article. Instead I'll argue here that rather than destroying kids' health, we should be looking at ways of cutting unnecessary items from the schools' budgets, and operating within the available means, which is what all of us have to do with our household budgets.
Instead, companies find new and innovative ways to get their message out to kids. Channel One provides a television to classrooms that only connects to its network. Candy bars, junk foods and fast food outlets are advertised daily, and "reporters" announce the release of new CD's and other kid-friendly products. What is this type of programming doing in our schools?
Some states, like New York and California, have banned Channel One, while others continue to insist that advertising junk to kids is a small price to pay for having a free television in every room. I'm not sure the future of public education is dependent on the accessibility of television to kids.
These egregious situations will continue, both in education and politics (which are, by the way, inextricably entwined) until citizens decide to hold those who work for us (politicians and public school employees) accountable in the same way we hold people accountable who work for us in other venues. We have simply abdicated our rights in these areas and we are, as a society, paying the price, both literally and figuratively.
Return to Article Library