EDITORIALS : Drying Up
Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008
Listen, we could sit here and talk all day long about the multitudinous ways government crosses the line by attempting to interfere with individual rights as citizens. Having said that, doing what reasonably can be done to restrict a young student's access to soft drinks at school does not qualify as worrisome or unconstitutional.
Act 1220 of 2003, which was signed into law by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, was a noble effort aimed at battling childhood obesity. One requirement demands that school districts remove vending machines from elementary schools, shut them down during certain periods of the day at other schools and "reduce school dependence on profits from the sale of foods of minimal nutritional value."
Make no mistake about it: Arkansas' ongoing efforts to promote healthy food and drinks are the type of forwardthinking, progressive measure Arkansas isn't readily known for. Huckabee's push to make tomorrow's adults fit and healthy is one of the key accomplishments of his decade in office.
But the process has also brought a degree of heartache. For years, schools have signed valuable contracts with soft-drink manufacturers to sell their products in our schools. These have been financially beneficial arrangements.
For instance, the Springdale School District receives $ 156, 000 each year from the Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Co. as part of a contract to sell only Coke products at sporting events and in vending machines. In a sense, the contracts are like found money for school districts to spend as they generally see fit.
The result of today's childnutrition laws means less financially rewarding contracts for school districts. The reason that matters is that our schools spend that cash on important projects that might not otherwise receive funding. More than two-thirds of the very nice practice field the Springdale Har-Ber High School football team will practice on this fall was built with soft-drink dollars. Not long ago, officials in the Rogers School District also used a portion of its soft-drink cash to lay turf at the football stadium. Fayetteville's soonto-expire contract with Pepsi brought home $ 208, 000 on an annual basis.
Opponents of the state's health initiatives are most likely shaking their heads. After all, nobody's forcing children to drink soft drinks. That's their choice. What's wrong with letting kids choose what they ingest ? Some observers (particularly superintendents ) may feel school districts are being unfairly punished in the process. The easy finances these contracts provide are a great thing. But knowing we've done everything possible to promote healthier living among children is way, way more important. Blocking access to soft drinks may only do so much good, but allowing kids to guzzle such beverages all day long isn't a standard to be set by our educational institutions. There's time enough in life for unhealthy habits. Schools should be seen as sanctuaries where our children can and should be reminded that healthier habits are also an option.
- Northwest Arkansas Times
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online