A Sticky Situation

In the past 20 years, the percentage of children and adolescents in the U.S. who are considered clinically obese has doubled. The situation has reached epidemic proportions; as a result, nutrition programs in schools promise to remain a critical public health concern for decades. In light of these circumstances, several organizations and health officials—including Walter Willett, chair of the Department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health—have recently begun lobbying state legislators and educators to end contracts with soft drink companies, which provide sellers exclusive rights to market their products in schools. But sadly, the problem is far more complicated—and far more pervasive—than any soft drink ban can solve.

There are indeed many valid criticisms of the soft drink deals, which are more involved than simply situating soda machines in prominent places for luring fickle high school consumers. Contracts not only require exclusivity in campus soft drink sales but often provide companies with advertising perks—not to mention access to a much sought-after (and impressionable) population of future buyers. These marketing practices, alongside frighteningly unhealthy offerings in school cafeterias, are only feeding into a serious public health epidemic.

But the alternative to the soft drink contracts in public schools is worse. Financial support for American public education is—and seems likely to remain—severely lacking. Exclusive contracts with soft drink companies provide school districts with urgently needed funding to pay for vital educational programs—programs that might otherwise be cut. The amount of money at stake is not negligible. Last month, for example, Florida’s Hillsborough County Public School District negotiated a 12-year contract with The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. for $50 million. Until governments fund public education appropriately, schools should not be forced to give up such a significant source of financial support to satisfy the concerns of nutrition lobbyists.

That is not to say schools should necessarily submit to just any soda company marketing deal that comes their way. Contracts that grant excessive freedom to advertise on campuses, inundate students with corporate-sponsored materials or attempt to override the autonomy of school administrators in their determination of school policies—such as banning beverages from classrooms—are contemptible. In many cases, however, an appropriate balance can be reached that allows schools to receive needed cash without sacrificing the learning environment to full corporate sponsorship.

The organizations lobbying to curtail bulging childhood obesity rates should certainly be commended for doing their part to raise awareness of the issues. Obesity has been linked to myriad health problems, and the excessive quantities of soda children consume these days—the typical teenage boy consumes just under seven ounces of soda daily—together with devastatingly sedentary lifestyles have left the health of our youth in dangerous shape. But banning soft drink contracts from schools will not make children healthier; it is the responsibility of parents and young people on their own to monitor consumption habits. More sweeping cultural changes—and active reforms—are needed before America will get back on track toward a healthy future.