Misguided PTA president speaks out in favor of junk food on campus

October 28, 7:27 AMSF Education ExaminerCaroline Grannan

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the SF Education Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Our kids are likely to live shorter lives than we do. That's what health professionals agree: Today's young people are expected to be the first generation in modern history to have a shorter lifespan than their parents' generation -- entirely because of obesity and related disorders.

That's pretty widely known these days. So it's startling to see a school PTA president speaking up for bake sales in schools. The president of an Oakland school PTA, decrying the state law that limits sales of unhealthy foods at schools, told the San Francisco Chronicle: "Bake sales are one of the quickest and easiest ways for schools to raise money. ... To limit this option has a significant impact on fundraising. And as a parent, it should really be my choice if I want to buy my child a cookie or slice of pizza after school."

Actually, California's state PTA policy supports limiting unhealthy food at school (and I know this because I wrote the 2004 resolution, passed by delegates at that year's annual state PTA convention, that set the policy).

I hoped the notion that money was more important than kids' health would have been dispelled by now, as awareness of the problems caused by obesity and the growing prevalence of childhood obesity increases. So it's a shame to see a PTA president with priorities so askew. (More disclosure: Sure, I like sweets too, and so do my kids. The cupcake looks yummy. That still doesn't mean it's a good idea to sell them at school.)

And "Rebutting Big Soda's favorite sound bites," a piece of material created by the SFUSD Student Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee, addresses the claim that the onus should be on parents to decide whether their kids should have access to unhealthy foods:

Claim: It's parents' responsibility to keep their kids from buying junk food at school!
Response: Parents are undermined when schools surround their kids with unhealthy snacks and sodas. And even if parents could control what their kids ate at school, not all parents are vigilant enough to be aware of the problem. Schools should not be encouraged to harm the health of children who have less savvy parents.

Here's the full text (which I co-wrote):

Rebutting Big Soda’s favorite sound bites

Claim: All foods can be part of a balanced diet!
Response: Sure, as an occasional snack. But a daily lunch of junk food harms kids' health and their ability to learn.
Claim: Kids should have free choice and should learn to exercise personal responsibility!
Response: We don't expect young children to exercise personal responsibility by crossing the street alone. We hold their hands. And until they're grown up, we still guide and protect our kids.
Claim: Kids won't eat healthy food!
Response: "Healthy" doesn't have to mean exotic organic-vegan creations. Familiar foods like sandwiches, soup, pasta, salad, chow mein and baked chicken are both healthy and kid-friendly.
Claim: Kids will just go off campus to buy junk food!
Response: Maybe. But schools must not contribute to harming their health. While schools are educating students and their families about the junk-food-laden environment that helps create the nutrition crisis, they undermine their own message by being part of that environment. Schools need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Claim: Offering poor choices teaches kids to choose wisely!
Response: If that were true, obesity would decrease as junk food proliferated in schools. And we don't offer kids cigarettes, alcohol or pornography to teach them to make wise choices.
Claim: It's parents' responsibility to keep their kids from buying junk food at school!
Response: Parents are undermined when schools surround their kids with unhealthy snacks and sodas. And even if parents could control what their kids ate at school, not all parents are vigilant enough to be aware of the problem. Schools should not be encouraged to harm the health of children who have less savvy parents.
Claim: 18-year-olds can serve in the military and vote, and some high-schoolers are 18, so they should have access to whatever foods they want!
Response: 18-year-olds CAN eat whatever foods they want — they just shouldn't be able to buy them at school. Schools need to emphasize protecting the youngest and most vulnerable students rather than accommodating the oldest and least vulnerable.
Claim: But schools need the money from selling junk foods!
Response: A recent editorial in a Tennessee newspaper asked: If selling junk food at school leads to even one new case of Type 2 diabetes in a student, is that price worth paying for what the money provides — whether it's new uniforms for the football team or the junior class trip?

Even if we did assume that schools would lose money if they don't sell junk food — which is not what has happened at SFUSD schools — we have to keep our priorities straight. You can't put a price on children's health.

SFUSD Student Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee
January 2007