According to this article by Dan McFeely in the Indianapolis Star, SB 111 which regulates the availability of junk food in schools faces a grim future in the House.
Back in January, I described the bill as follows:
Requires a school board to establish a “school health advisory council.†The council is permitted to review the school corporation’s wellness policy on an annual basis. Requires the council to meet at least once per year to take public testimony on the wellness policy. Requires a school board to adopt a district policy on child nutrition and physical activity which takes into consideration recommendations by the council (presuming the council exercises its discretion to make such a recommendation.) Requires the department of education to provide information on health, nutrition, and physical fitness. It puts restrictions on food and beverages that can be sold to students, but the restrictions do not apply to part of a school lunch program or school breakfast program (except for items sold in the a la carte line); sold in an area that is not accessible to students; sold after normal school hours; or sold or distributed as part of a fundraiser. It goes into some detail about the foods that can and can’t be sold, but basically soda, coffee, and high sugar fruit drinks = bad; milk, water, low sugar fruit drinks = good. Sugary and fatty foods are also bad. Elementary schools are required to conduct daily physical activity for students. Vending machine contracts entered into before July 1, 2006 are grandfathered in but may not be renewed.
Despite the Governor’s supposed concern about the health of Indiana’s children, he is not supporting this bill. The article did not include an explanation, if any was given, for the Governor’s indifference to this bill. Meanwhile, Rep. Behning, chair of the House Education Committee is noncomittal about whether this bill will even get a hearing. He has been opposed to this sort of legislation in the past. He contends that kids need to change their lifestyles at home, which is true as far as it goes, I suppose, but is no excuse for refusing to help kids out at school where the government controls the environment.
One of the main reasons for opposition to this bill is that cutting vending revenues to the schools will create a funding gap for already cash-strapped schools. But Sandy Shoaf has it right when she says, “money cannot outweigh the health of the kids.” I’ll go one step further and suggest that schools ought to be a commercial free zone. It just seems wrong to me that we refuse to adequately fund our schools then make up for the shortfall by selling a captive audience of our children to companies peddling sugar and salt. That seems pretty close to a moral failing to me.
Update The Indy Star has an editorial supporting SB 111.
I have done many hours of high school cafeteria patrol and here are some observations.
A balanced meal should be offered to those ( maybe about 30-40 %) who would eat a balanced meal. A typical lunch for a teen is two hamburgers, a double order of fries, 3 chocolate milks and 2 brownies for dessert.Girls eat less than boys,often by quite a bit.Otherwise the majority of balanced meals would end up in the garbage can.
And vending machines are very important to supplement a cafeteria budget, which is supposed to come out even. Soda and bags of chips and candy bars are always a big money maker and balance out the overall loss on balanced meals. Also, how creative the cafeteria crew is with what they have is very important.The object is not to set up any scenario where food is wasted or thrown away by anyone.
In summary, make good balanced meals available but if you dont watch the bottom line, meal service will incur debts( under most current systems),and there is no way to make up the difference.
“there is no way to make up the difference.”
Sure there is, it’s called a tax. I don’t think school cafeterias should be offering junk food. Just offer a balanced meal and let the kids eat it or not.
We compel kids to attend school. Then we don’t adequately fund schools. Then, to make up for the money we failed to provide to our schools, we turn around and offer soda companies and the like exclusive access to a captive audience made up of our children. Seems wrong to me. Seems like we have a duty to adequately fund our schools.
At the risk of seeming callous, I’d support cutting state funded or subsidized medical support before supporting a shortfall in education funding that has to be made up for in this fashion. I think the government has a greater duty to educate its children (not funded by selling them to advertisers) than it does to its sick and elderly.
Ideally, we could fund both. But if a choice has to be made, I’d side with the kids. Maybe state funded hospitals could be subsidized through contracts with soda and candy companies. Sell Pepsi to the diabetics, for example.
In today’s climate, Step 1 in educational reform is always ‘tax cut’,so step 2 is not going to be
‘tax increase for good balanced meals in the cafeteria’.Idealism costs money,and thats not going to happen.We have to settle for vouchers,ID,and abstinence.
That’s so depressing.
>>At the risk of seeming callous, I’d support cutting state funded or subsidized medical support before supporting a shortfall in education funding that has to be made up for in this fashion. I think the government has a greater duty to educate its children (not funded by selling them to advertisers) than it does to its sick and elderly.
I must have hit the wrong button or something. What I meant to submit was to say that I don’t agree with the paragraph above. Making cuts in programs that help the most vulnerable, whether children, the sick, or the elderly is not good. One vulnerable group’s fortunes should not be sacrificed for another vulnerable group’s, IMO.
As for why Mitch Daniels does not support the junk food bill, I can think of at least three possible reasons.
1. He does not believe that the government (in the form of the legislature and local school boards)should restrict contracts freely entered into by two parties, especially if the contracts appear to be mutually beneficial. One could argue how “freely” a cash-strapped local school system enters into a contract with a corporate food entity, but still, the governor may not see things that way.
2. The governor does not believe in public education available to all. He would never say that in public, of course. But he may figure that if public schools have to enter into contracts with food and food service corporations, then that is further proof that the public school system is not able to make ends meet, is wasteful, etc. If parents want their children to have access to healthy foods away from home, then they can send their kids to private schools that serve vegetarian, organic, and low-fat meals. (OTOH, Daniels may also feel that the contracts that allow school cafeterias to thrive and supply cash for extra curricular activities are a wonderful example of public entities working with the private sector. Either way, he wouldn’t support the junk food bill.)
3. The governor may be giving lip service to health initiatives. It is all well and good to have photo ops, hand out brochures on healthy living, and hold a few events. It is another thing to put tax dollars behind substantive programs that actually work.
Just my three cents. Fire away! :)
I want to get involved. There must be some solution (or at least an improvement) that can be made in this situation.
School should be a safe place for our children and with the scaling back of physical education something needs to happen to help these kids make good choices.
I promote healthy meals/snacks for my kids at home, but if they’re asked to make a choice between junk and healthy, the junk appeals to their young taste buds and that’s what they’ll choose. We can’t ask our kids to shoulder this choice when they are just learning to make these choices intelligently.
And, think of the number of parents out there setting poor examples or not pushing for healthy appetites.
Again, I think school should be a safe haven from this influence, just as it should strive to be free from rampant drug use and violence – or at least offer a better option than being out there on their own.
So, my question is, how can I make a difference? Any ideas?
Thanks,
Kerry Dodd
Kerry:
I don’t have any children, but I do understand–at least a little bit–how difficult it can be to get children to adopt a healthy diet.
In my previous job, I had to go into school cafeterias a lot and was appalled at the choices that were available, particulary for the junior high and high school kids. The main food line featured items such as chicken patties, macaroni and cheese, fried fish sandwiches, cookies, etc. The a la carte line was pizza every day, cheeseburgers, fries, and the like. Kids could also buy ice cream, pretzels with cheese, nachos sports drinks, Pop Tarts, Little Debbie or Hostess snacks, etc., if they had the extra money. Typically, at each school one small cooler held a few salads, some fruit, and bottled water. It was a tiny island of healthy food in a sea of junk.
If you haven’t already done so, I would suggest finding out what is served at school and see if it is possible to get a like-minded group of parents to effect change. Put pressure on the school board about what is served in the cafeterias and in vending machines.
Also, find out if the school cafeteria is run by a corporate entity such as Sodexho and if there are contracts with companies such as Coca-Cola to supply vending machines. Sodexho runs school cafeterias to make money, and selling junk food makes them money. Salads and fruit do not generate much money.
I don’t think that you will see more healthy food in the schools without parents demanding it and almost shaming the school systems to do right by the children.
I hope that things go well for you in your efforts.
–Pila
Both of my girls, ages 6 and 8, eat both breakfast and lunch in the school cafeteria each day. Breakfast is $1.00 and Lunch is $2.00, which both are balanced and nutritional. Healthy eating is promoted at home, we never go to McDonalds for greasy french fries. I also don’t allow my girls to get the sugary juices or chocolate or strawberry milk. They both get a carton of reduced fat white milk with both breakfast and lunch. They are both very active, both have won physical fitness awards and both are straight A students.
No offense to the previous poster, but maybe stories should be closed for further posts after 2-4 weeks of no comment activity?