T Nation

Schools Sodas Sales Near End


#1

"The nation's largest beverage distributors have agreed to halt nearly all soda sales to public schools, according to a deal announced Wednesday by the William J. Clinton Foundation.
ADVERTISEMENT

Under the agreement, the companies have agreed to sell only water, unsweetened juice and low-fat milks to elementary and middle schools, said Jay Carson, a spokesman for former President
Bill Clinton. Diet sodas would be sold only to high schools."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060503/ap_on_re_us/soft_drinks_schools;_ylt=Ak2obPw0Umr.NMCZX2.x68Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

About F'ing time!!!

*BB & Zap,

This is the way it is done.

Cheers!


#2

You missed this part:

How quickly the changes take hold will depend in part on individual school districts' willingness to alter existing contracts, the alliance said. The companies will work to implement the changes at 75 percent of the nation's public schools by the 2008-2009 school year, and at all public schools a year later.

A good start, but probably not going to happen until 2010.


#3

You proved my point by clicking the link and finding more information.

Thanks!


#4

All I can say is good riddance!


#5

That's a good thing. I'd hate it if I was a student, but it really needs to be done.

That shit is poison.


#6

90% of all soda consumed by teenagers is consumed away from school. this is nothing more than symbolic.

Parents--PARENTS, where are you?


#7

In 2004 this policy went into effect in Texas:

http://www.tcta.org/legal/laws/nutritionguide.htm

There was some serious bitching and moaning by parents.


#8

Stocking the fridge with soda.


#9

Maybe they'll catch on to it?

or maybe they'll just send the kids in with it, being as they don't sell it anymore.

But hey, every little bit helps


#10

Sometimes symbols are important! This can send a big message to people and help get them to think a little bit.

Interesting to see that some of us are downplaying this event... why the hell is that?


#11

"former President Bill Clinton"

That's why.

Now if it had been negotiated by the "George H. W. Bush Foundation" ol' sassy would be touting it as "the biggest achievement of our lifetimes" or some bullshit, and BB would be talking about how amazing it is that it will take effect as soon as 2010.


#12

Because it isn't an event. It is the possibility that something might happen at some undefined point in the future. No one will downplay it when they are rolling the Coke machines off campus.


#13

If this was directed at me:

It's not so much downplaying it, as it is simply stating that it is but a drop in the bucket as far as help wrt total soda intake. It is symbolic. QWuite frankly, until it actually takes effect, it's barely that.

You'd be better served mandating the largest serving of any soft drink that can be sold at a convenience store is 16 ozs. I believe right now they call that a small.

How aboout a symbolic tax on foods that contain more than 50% HFCS as their main ingredient to offset medical bills.

Instead of the FDA worrying about glycimic indecies of foods like apples and bananas, how about we begin starting the news with the dangers of HFCS and hydrogenated oils?

But, I do think it's a good idea to remove them from the schools. Just not a believer it will have but a smidgeon of effect on the total consumed overall.

Call me cynical!


#14

It just further shows why there can be little meaningful dialogue down here anymore.

I looked at this as a world issue, not a political one. Obviously, you are incapable of distinguishing between the two.

My response was quite clear and concise. It's effect on the overall consumption of soda will be nill.


#15

To be fair, Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) was instrumental in reaching the agreement.

I don't think it's fair to call it symbolic or pie in the sky. It's a shrewd initial salvo on the obesity epidemic. It in and of itself might not stop kids drinking corn syrup, but it should send a message and readjust the culture. How would you stop children from drinking soda otherwise (other than stopping subsidy of corn syrup)?

If you don't have an answer to that, and you criticize this, then you're just bellyaching.


#16

This seems very well thoughout, but morever, it seems like the policy when I was in elementary school 20 years ago! I didn't have school access to a pop machine until I was a sophomore in high school! What the hell happened?

Doogie, i'm just curious, what kind of bitching and moaning did the parents do? Why the hell would they be against this?


#17

I think a tax of HFTS or mandating a maximum size on Big Gulps is a laudable goal. It will also be 20x as hard to get that through Congress than this agreement was to get.

I don't think we're going to have one front in the war on obesity. It takes a comprehensive policy, and I have to think the policy starts with education. Education doesn't stop when you leave the classroom, and things children see at school help set the norms 10 or 15 years down the fact.

If you make the school a healthy place, you might make the people you graduate more healthy in general. It's the same thing with smoking. They haven't banned tobacco, but they have educated people on it and prevented access to it to minors, and smoking has gone down as a result.


#18

I don't think you can realistically expect to mandate maximum size drinks or so on to the general public.

I mean, are you seriously suggesting that McDonalds be forced to adjust its menu or something?

You run immediately into rights and freedoms when you get out of what can be sold in school versus what the general public can do if they wish.

Most real solutions involve getting people to understand the issues, make the right choices, which will shape consumer demand in the appropriate way. Doing this in the schools should be used as an opportunity to have a dialogue and get some education to occur.


#19

Honestly vroom, they were just throw outs as to things that would be 10x more effective than the school ban. You and your style of posting should be quite familiar with throwing out ideas that may or may not be plausible.

I also said I agreed with the ban. I just say its effectiveness is nothing without further education. HENCE my very first post:

PARENTS--where are you.

And yes, in a way, I am saying we can or should try to limit size of containers. I mean the gov't has seen fit to say it's legal to smoke, but not in any public area. That has to do with personal choice. You must wear a helmet on a motorcycle. That's personal choice. The gov't does it everyday. Seat belts. PC. Baby seats. PC


#20

You may be right, but it just seems like a dangerous path. Legislating that we can't freely choose what we wish to eat.

Can you imagine if it's suddenly decided for us what type of food we can grow in our home gardens?

Maybe they will outlaw frying pans and we'll be forced to eat everything steamed instead!

Oh the horror.