Should Schools Ban Junk Food?
Directions: There are two sections of the article below. For each section, complete a Venn Diagram for those who want to “Get Rid of the Junk Food,” those who say “Do Not Ban Junk Food,” and what arguments fall in the middle. You are recording the major arguments for each group.
Get Rid of the Junk Food
Critics say that the adverse health effects of junk food are so significant that it should be banned from schools. Foods like candy, potato chips and soda have no or almost no nutritional value, they say, and have no place in schools.
According to a 2001 report by the USDA, only 2% of school-aged children meet the Food Guide Pyramid serving suggestions for all five food groups. Some 56% to 85% of children, depending on age, drink soda an any given day. And more than one-third of teenage males drink three or more servings of soda each day.
The consequences of overconsumption of junk food are very clear, critics say. More children than ever are overweight. In fact, the "prevalence of overweight youth ages 6-17 years in the U.S. has more than doubled in the past 30 years," according to the report. Overweight children are much more likely to develop Type II diabetes, which used to be known as adult-onset diabetes because it was so rare in children.
Before 1992, children made up just 2%-4% of all Type II cases diagnosed. By 1994, that number had leaped to 16% of all diagnoses. "Childhood obesity has become an epidemic in the United States and is a primary factor in Type II diabetes and other long-term health problems," says California Gov. Gray Davis (D).
And since overweight children are more likely than healthy-weight children to become overweight adults, the health effects of childhood obesity often last for a lifetime. As adults, those children have an "increased risk for developing heart disease and stroke, gallbladder disease, arthritis, and endometrial, breast, prostate and colon cancers," according to the USDA report.
The move by school children away from drinking milk and toward drinking soda and sugary fruit drinks, experts say, has also had two other important consequences. First, there has been a negative impact on the oral health of the country's children due to increased sugar consumption. Children are getting more cavities and having a more difficult time managing their oral health in general, they note.
Second, experts say that the drop in milk consumption means that kids are getting less calcium in their diets. Calcium is necessary for building strong bones. By the time children reach the age of 18, they have built all of the bone density that they will ever have; from then on, it deteriorates. Less calcium means less bone density, which translates into more fragile bones later in life. The result might be a higher prevalence of bone breaks, which are often difficult for the elderly to recover from. For women, good bone density is essential to stave off osteoporosis, a condition that creates brittle bones.
Given all of the health concerns surrounding the diets of young people, critics say, the only acceptable stance toward junk food is that it must be removed from schools. And some students agree. Among them is Jodi Boyce, a member of Kids Against Junk Food (KAJF), a nationwide organization of students. She testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee in 1994 on the subject of junk food and stressed that there are alternatives to unhealthy food in vending machines that would allow schools to keep making money from the machines.
"Vending machines with unhealthy food choices could be replaced by machines with healthy choices," Boyce says. "Soda machines could also be replaced with juice machines. The real questionis which is more important--children's health or the profits of junk food companies."
The health issue is important, opponents of junk food say, but so is the fact that allowing schools to sell junk food in the cafeteria or in hallways goes against what is taught in the classroom. Health classes teach kids to eat a healthy, balanced diet--the kind of diet that does not include junk food. "We teach students good nutrition and then sell them junk food--what a double message!" writes Judy Stewart, a school nurse for almost two decades.
Dorothy Caldwell, director of child nutrition for the Arkansas Department of Education, says that it is the schools' responsibility to teach good eating habits:
The sale of foods of minimal nutritional value deters students from learning the right lessons. They may be taught good nutrition in the classroom, but they get a different message if they can buy soft drinks and snack foods right outside the school cafeteria. It suggests that schools are more interested in their dollars than their health.
Do Not Ban Junk Food
Supporters admit that whether to sell junk food in school is a difficult question to resolve. They acknowledge the fact that diets high in fat and sugar are not good for children. But, they conclude, the benefits of selling junk food outweigh its potential for harm.
According to reports, schools generate more than $750 million each year from the sale of junk food through vending machines. Following the 1983 federal court decision that allowed junk food to be sold throughout the day everywhere but in cafeterias, and in cafeterias after lunch periods are over, vending machines have become a significant source of income for some schools. Analysts say that the revenue from vending machines could not have become available at a better time, because there has also been a decline in the level of aid provided to schools by state and federal agencies over the last 20 years.
When budgets get cut and schools receive less money from the government, analysts note, music, sports and art programs are often the first to be cut. Also commonly on the chopping block are computer programs, upgrades for libraries, and shop and home economics classes.
Other sources of income--large enough to make up for the cuts in government aid and steady enough to sustain the school--have to be found. Many school administrators say that the best solution has been to install vending machines that sell candy, chips, pastries and soda.
"This money is crucial," says William Ryan, principal of High Point High School in Prince George's County, Md., of the income from vending machines. According to reports, in 2000, High Point made nearly $100,000 from the vending machines in the school. That money accounted for about 25% of the school's operating budget. "There are things that I do with that money around the school for the students that I could not do [without it]," he said.
Many administrators say that they wish there was another way of making money, but that vending machines are simply too dependably profitable to be banned from schools. "It's unfortunate," says Maria Balakshin, nutrition director for the California Education Department. "There's not enough money in schools to do everything that needs to be done."
Others express frustration not only at the lack of money for education, but also at the criticism they receive when they decide to allow vending machines and junk food sales in schools. "Maybe it's not the best way of making money," says Paul Houston, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators. "But who is responsible for providing funding for schools? The very people who are now saying that we can't engage in creative ways of raising money."
Others who support selling junk food in schools say kids will eat junk food regardless of whether schools offer it. If schools choose not to sell soda and snacks, kids will simply go to a local store or fast food restaurant to get what they want, they say. This is particularly true at high schools, many of which have open campus policies that allow students to leave the premises during their lunch period.
Since that is the case, some argue, selling junk food in school is a safety issue. It is more dangerous for students to go off campus--either walking or driving--than for the junk food to be on campus. "Kids will eat chocolate and look for caffeine. It goes with the territory, like hormones," says Sallie Sternbach, president of the Blair High School Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA). "From my perspective, I'd much rather have them be available on campus than put kids at risk finding a way to get off campus and cross eight lanes of traffic to find their manna."
Some supporters frame the question in terms of who should decide whether a particular school is going to sell junk food. Rather than having a national or state-wide policy regarding junk food in schools, some argue that the decision should be left up to those who have a connection with a particular school.
"Let the parents, the students and the school community sit down and decide how to handle this," says Robert Meeks, legislative director for the Minnesota School Boards Association, which has opposed efforts to reduce soda sales. "The states only seem interested in local control when it suits them."
The level of control currently exercised by schools, especially in the aftermath of an outbreak of school shootings in the late 1990s, is also of concern to some who ask why more regulations should be imposed on already over-regulated schools. Getting rid of junk food may have health benefits, some say, but more restrictions are not the answer.
"Yes, we should teach and model good eating habits. Yes, we have health problems brought on by poor nutrition. But no, we should not ban junk food," says Margaret Johnson, a high school teacher in New Mexico. "Our schools are restrictive enough as it is. They do no need to resemble prisons any more than they do."
Open-ended Response: Based on the reading above and your notes you’ve taken on the Venn Diagram, answer the following prompt.
After considering both sides of the issue, should schools get rid of junk food? Why or why not?