In a very interesting move, the major soft-drink makers have agreed to pull full-calorie soft drinks entirely out of schools in an agreement with the William J. Clinton Foundation. Although this agreement is voluntary for both the industry and the schools, the plan is for it to be fully implemented by the 2009-2010 school year. The guidelines apply to all levels of school and all regular activities. The only time when full-calorie soft-drinks will be sold is when adults comprise a significant portion of the consumers (such as sporting events or PTA meetings).
These are the guidelines published by the Clinton Foundation:
Elementary School
Bottled water
Up to 8 ounce servings of milk and 100% juice**
Low fat and non fat regular and flavored milk* with up to 150 calories / 8 ounces
100% juice** with no added sweeteners and up to 120 calories / 8 ounces
Middle School
Same as elementary school, except juice and milk may be sold in 10 ounce servings***
High School
Bottled water
No or low calorie beverages with up to 10 calories / 8 ounces
Up to 12 ounce servings of milk, 100% juice**, light juice and sports drinks
Low fat and non fat regular and flavored milk with up to 150 calories / 8 ounces
100% juice** with no added sweeteners and up to 120 calories / 8 ounces
Light juices and sports drinks with no more than 66 calories / 8 ounces
At least 50% of beverages must be water and no or low calorie options
As I said, this is voluntary for both the beverage companies and the school districts, although it appears that the industry does intend to abide by these guidelines. It will be up to the school districts to re-negotiate their contracts with the beverage companies.
The very obvious reason for the industry to make this move is that they're trying to avoid the backlash and negative publicity that's been threatening them for the past few years. Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation) picked up the topic in the first well-known publication (to my knowledge) and Morgan Spurlock examined the issue in further detail in his book "Don't Eat This Book". In that time, a definite anti-soda movement was building (along with a more general anti-junk food movement), especially as targeted to school children who sometimes make (and are led to make) atrocious nutrition choices.
I would not say, though, that I entirely trust this deal. Good publicity is one thing, but from what I've seen, billion-dollar industries do not typically change their business models so lightly. For example, take the recording industry and downloadable music. They wanted to make every kind of downloading illegal, even for-pay services, until they were defeated by the obvious influx of money. I'm not saying that every corporation will respond the same way, but "enlightened self-interest" seems to be a concept beyond most of them, thus prompting me to ask what else the soda industry is getting out of this deal. Unfortunately I'm no reporter and haven't the first clue where to look for that kind of info, but maybe Morgan Spurlock will do the work for me.
Still and all, of course I approve of this action, as it appears that unless kids just guzzle down milk, their caloric intake (and sugar) will now be significantly lower than what it was before. This can possibly have a lot of side-effects, including calming kids down and enabling them to learn more. I think it's well enough documented that hyping any kid up on sugar and caffeine presents great difficulties for them in maintaining concentration. Plus which, it's a bad thing for your health to be addicted to either sugar or caffeine, much less both. Sugar (as sucrose) was not a component that was present in human diets until very, very recently (around 2500 years). Of course sugar was present in fruits, but until the modern food industry arose people didn't have instant and continuous access to fruit either. This explains the horrible affects the over-consumption of sugar has on the human body, the worst of which is diabetes (usually tied to obesity). The human body simply hasn't developed the ability to handle an influx of a huge amount of sugar. It's just bad for us. Most people's ancestors lived hardly ever tasting the sweetness of sugar, much less drinking sugared drinks every day.
As for caffeine, it's not something you want anyone taking in the middle of the day! Although I usally abstain from any consumption of it, I too have made late-night drives home, which were only possible by having a Dr. Pepper at hand. I try to abstain completely now (and feel much healthier for it), I can't find fault with those who need a pick-me-up in the morning. But still, caffeine in the middle of the day is a horrible idea for anybody, much less school kids.
Like I said, it's a good thing for kids and schools to get rid of the soft-drinks. Let's just see if that's what's really happening.
6 comments:
When I graduated college, I had to decide between giving up booze or soda... Sorry, Coke.
Uh, good for you. Kids, don't take up drinking either. I never heard of anyone getting in trouble for driving under the influence of Coca-Cola
Depends on what Patrick Kennedy chased his Ambien with...
Uh, lame joke. But it's Friday.
I think this is a great step forward. Though I'm wondering still about the nutritional content of the subsidizes meals that schools give kids. I don't know if they changed much, but there was nothing healthy about Friday's special of watery chili, bleached rice and greasy tater tots. If they're still feeding them that, then eliminating the only tasty food the kids might have is probably just being cruel.
That's indeed a very salient point. You know, I always wondered what those "rocks" were that were invariably in all the hamburger patties. I now know that it was likely some piece of animal that shouldn't have been there. I really think something must be done about that, but hey, at least this is a start.
By the way, I'm wondering how conservatives will spin this one. Notice it's the William J. Clinton foundation that brokered the agreement? Yes, that's right, it's ol' pasty-legs himself, Bill Clinton, former POTUS. Now don't get me wrong, I'm wondering what's in it for him too, but unlike an Ann Coulter fan (i.e. idiot) I'm not going to assume he's somehow laundering money for the Chinese.
Post a Comment