Turning Maine schools into junk-free zones

Some things are not worth debating; I got stopped by a police officer the other night for going 60 in a 45 mph zone, and did not try to talk the nice officer out of the ticket I deserved. Maine schools should not be in the business of selling soda and candy to their students, which is why many of them are, of course.

That may change in Maine if the Maine Legislature passes LD 104, a bill that would ban the sale of vended foods with less than 5 percent nutritional value – including soda and candy – in Maine public schools. Currently such foods can be sold immediately after the last class bell rings. Sales of more nutritional snacks and drinks such as fruit juices would still be allowed, as would bake sale benefits.

The soft drink manufacturers are positively fizzing about the proposed school soda ban. They say it takes away freedom of choice, does nothing to promote exercise, will interrupt an important revenue source for schools and school organizations, etc. They argue that the bill picks on soda and candy, which are not the only source of excess calories for children.

Their arguments, however, flatten when exposed even briefly to the air. There are compelling reasons for picking on soda and candy, and getting them out of schools.

First and foremost, soda and candy are major contributors to the growing epidemic of obesity among America’s children, and schools which are in the business of helping produce healthy students should not be in the business of selling them major potential contributors to an unhealthy lifestyle. LD 104 is less about candy and soda than it is about schools selling them.

Second, soda in particular is not being picked on or singled out by the bill; its manufacturers and marketers singled it out by making sugar calories in a can and selling it to students. A recent study in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet found that soda, which is essentially water plus an average of eight teaspoons of sugar per can, is the largest single source of excess sugar in the diet of American children. An extra soda per day increases the chance of a child becoming obese by 60 percent, and can add an extra pound to a child’s weight in four weeks if not burned off.

Nor did LD 104’s supporters seek the marketing advantage of selling soda and candy to students in our schools; the manufacturers and marketers also singled themselves out by doing that. In addition, it was the federal government that set minimum nutritional standards for school foods, standards that soda and candy cannot meet. Those standards are so low, by the way, that food for thought almost qualifies as nutrition; that soda and candy cannot even meet those low standards says a lot.

Third, the proposed ban will not kill off all of the vending revenues for schools and affiliated clubs. When candy and soda sales have been banned elsewhere students spend their vending dollars on alternatives. This argument is simply designed to help those opposing the bill to acquire allies and keep some potential foes on the sidelines.

Finally, the argument that the proposed ban on the sale of soda and candy in schools should not be passed into law because it does nothing to increase exercise in students is beside the point. It is akin to suggesting there is no point to shoveling the driveway because it is just going to snow again some other day. No issue as complex as obesity can be solved with one bill. (Nor did the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Sean Faircloth, try to do so; LD 104 is part of a comprehensive package of bills aimed at promoting health.) The proposed school soda ban is one piece of the big puzzle of how do we keep Americans healthy when the American food industry spends billions trying to get us eat more, and when keeping healthy is hard, sweaty work.

The proposed ban has a lot of support from Maine’s health care associations. It needs more support from some other quarters. The Maine Principals’ Association has as yet not come out in support of the bill, suggesting a need for more principal principle on this issue. Gov. John Baldacci’s position is also unclear; support of LD 104 should be a natural for a governor determined to get the state’s health care costs under control. Maine’s Legislature cannot legitimately claim to be concerned about health care costs if it cannot get soda and candy out of schools.

The Maine Dietetic Association (MDA), the professional organization representing the state’s dietitians (dietary experts), needs to take a public stance on a related issue. Its incoming president, Carol Meerschaert, is a paid lobbyist for the soda industry, and in her own public opposition to the bill she has listed her upcoming presidency of the MDA among her credentials. She has used that title, and by extension the credibility of the MDA, to give weight to her opposition. The MDA’s members should protect their credibility from this hypocrisy by either forcing Meerschaert to disavow her relationship with them in her comments about the proposed ban, or by getting themselves a different incoming president.

Getting Americans to be healthy is a job for all of us; getting Maine schools out of the business of purveying snacks with the nutritional value of pulp wood is the job of the Maine Legislature and LD 104.

Erik Steele, D.O. is a physician in Bangor, an administrator at Eastern Maine Medical Center, and is on the staff of several hospital emergency rooms in the region.