Are vending limitations in schools working?

Health professionals say school vending is a “nutritional nightmare,” while a district can euphemistically promote it as the savior of extracurricular activities. Nevertheless, a heavy downside is that oft-undisclosed “dawn-till-dark” vending contracts conventionally protect suppliers with a guaranteed enrollment of “captive clientele,” while prohibiting on-site competition.

But one would presume that new “munch-and-sip” regulations sought by the Obama administration would hardly be needed. For in May 2006, the William J. Clinton Foundation and American Heart Association (together known as the Alliance for a Healthier Generation) enlisted the American Beverage Association and three major bottlers to delimit K-12 educational sales of “liquid candy.” In April 2007, the Snack Food Association and seven manufacturers accepted respective guidelines.

This program made academic year 2009-10 to have all (pre-existing, bottler contracted) schools on board.

While the Alliance allows diet soda during the classroom day, fructose-sweetened brands are excluded. Trouble is, profit follows popularity, and a significant drop in sales was more than some schools wanted.

But faced with appearing “nutritionally correct,” individually they would stock and champion Alliance-type “healthy” selections, while quietly retaining the moneymakers unavailable through the coalition's contract.

Nonetheless, the dutiful “eats police” knew that changing the noshing habits of an adolescent in a palate-provoking setting is akin to making a cat eat other than liver as long as it can avail itself of liver. So in failing to restrict their “fat food” enterprises, districts will likely inherit another layer of picky federal mandate.

Gerald R. Eberle

Retired educator

Pocahontas