« Ask questions later. Or not. | Main | The children's game, not the body spray »

January 09, 2006

Against a libertarian school system

It has always intrigued me how angry it makes many conservatives when "no pop machine" policies are proposed for public schools. Preserving the rights of minors to purchase and consume empty calories with their parents' money just seems a very unlikely cause, I think. John Luik's article in the January 16 Western Standard notes Governor Schwarzenegger's anti-soda movement, and contrasts it with research by the University of Alberta's Paul Veugelers showing that

how often a child eats Big Macs or Whoppers and fries every week has no statistically significant impact on obesity risk factors — even among kids who eat fast food more than three times a week.

Nor was there any significant statistical difference between the quantity of soft drinks consumed by children attending schools that did not sell soft drinks and those that did.

This is all very well, but Veugelers also noted the following:

Previously we showed that integrated school programs that include more physical education, healthy lunches, health and nutrition education, training of staff, parental involvement, and a halt to the sales of soft drinks were successful in improving children's diets and reducing overweight by 59% and obesity by 72%.

This suggests that schools do have a very important role to play in promoting good nutrition among their students, and while soft drinks aren't the be-all and end-all of anything they are quite correctly not associated with good nutrition. More basically, I see no reason that public schools should be giving children unfettered access to things that the vast majority of their parents wouldn't.

Part of the objection is no doubt the distinctly anti-corporate bent espoused by some organizations who support soft drink bans. Here's Margo G. Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest:

Selling soda and junk food in schools isn’t philanthropic, it’s predatory. The money from soda contracts comes out of children's and parents' pockets. Coke, Pepsi, and other junk-food marketers enjoy being in schools because they know it is one of the only places they can target kids without parental interference.

Whether she's right or not, that kind of talk quite naturally rankles conservatives — but anti-Coca Cola hyperbole is no evidence one way or the other as to whether schools should be selling fizzy drinks. I would take corporations right out of the equation and suggest that there's no good reason for schools to be selling any food at all outside the lunchroom, where it should be as nutritious as possible.

These are schools, for heaven's sake — accusations of government nannyism seem rather out of place for institutions that are supposed to regulate behaviour. Schools are not meant to facilitate the full expression of Canadian children's rights. They are meant to educate. To that end, as I think all teachers and parents can agree, the less sugar and caffeine the better.

(Cross-posted to the Shotgun.)

Posted by Chris Selley at January 9, 2006 11:26 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/220

Comments

Posted by: Matt McIntosh at January 10, 2006 12:26 AM

Posted by: Colby Cosh at January 10, 2006 09:43 AM

Posted by: Jay Jardine at January 10, 2006 12:13 PM

Posted by: Brian at January 10, 2006 01:09 PM

Posted by: Chris Selley at January 10, 2006 06:29 PM