Congratulations to you and all the other students who are fighting this absurd regulation.

The only hope for stopping these petty tyrants from dominating every aspect of the school system is the mobilization of students and parents.

Good for you!

a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It ru.ns media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving,calling them “the Nanny Culture — the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who ‘know what’s best for you.’ ”

– according to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy

The CCF is right in your corner and will probably help fund any efforts to retain sales of unhealthy foods in schools. Obviously, I don’t agree with those efforts, but you might as well be very clear on who you’re working with.

www dot consumerfreedom dot com

(For the record, I support health care reform, including a public option.) I got into a civil private discussion with one of the people screaming “socialist!” and asked her what health care system she did think was workable. She said she simply thought people who couldn’t afford it shouldn’t get health care, period. Well, that shut me up. If we were on such different planets, not much point in even discussing it.

That’s kind of how I am with someone who says money is more important than young people’s health. It’s like, whoa, if those are your values and you’re open about it, I respect your honesty, but I’m struck dumb.

To repeat myself, health professionals and children’s health advocates believe that a toxic food environment is responsible for the deadly obesity epidemic that’s ravaging our nation — and hitting hardest on low-income communities of color. School bake sales are part of that toxic environment. And — sorry to use a cliche, but — schools need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. It IS the food — any obesity expert, doctor or nutritionist will tell you that. The only forces who will dispute that are the soda and junk food industries — industries that also put money (their own profits) ahead of young people’s (and all people’s) health.

The notion that bake sales will lead to BETTER health is going further than even Pepsico and Frito-Lay would venture, though.

I’m proud that Beacon is actually in the news for something other than the Cuba trip and I applaud Seth for getting us out there!

Second, food sales that compete with the school meal program do drain money from it, and in the end, the people who suffer from that are the most vulnerable children — the youngest and the poorest. Circumstances may be somewhat different elsewhere, but here in California’s underfunded schools, financial hits on the school meal program mean cuts in the quality of the food, and when the school nutrition program runs at a loss, the money to cover it comes out of classroom needs. As I say, circumstances may be SOMEwhat different — but you will find if you look into it that the competing sales wind up hurting the most vulnerable children.

And of course the obesity crisis also hits the most vulnerable hardest — low-income people, Latinos and African-Americans, who also have far less access to quality health care than the privileged.

In the end, when all the arguments are pulled apart, it’s about whether money is more important than the health and well-being of children, especially society’s most vulnerable children. Which side are you on?

SPLENDAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

I’ve followed these issues nationwide for some years. I haven’t actually heard of successful efforts to roll back improvements in the nutritional quality of school food (whether competitive sales or cafeteria fare – it’s not sound to claim they’re entirely different issues). The arguments are too compelling. Thoughtful people eventually come to agree, after perhaps some initial bluster.

My reason for posting the videos created largely by San Francisco students is that our district’s student leaders, being thoughtful people who do care about the world around them and especially about the most vulnerable members of our community, have largely become advocates of healthy school food themselves. I predict that yours will too.

I’m a veteran of the battles over secondhand smoke in workplaces and public places, and the attitudes and steps in the process have the same feeling.

Actually, activist professionals like Kelly Brownell of Yale (author of “Food Fight”) and Marion Nestle of NYU (author of “Food Politics”) cite the “toxic environment” that surrounds Americans with temptation, and call for advocacy to change that environment.

Among the many other nutritionists and scientists who share their view, the Center for Science in the Public Interest also espouses replacing bake sales with non-food-based fundraising,and has put out a guide full of models. I’ll post a link to that and to two other good resources for non-food-based fundraising ideas on a separate post due to the moderation delay.

The student’s give thoughtful and well reasoned arguments to support their case. An expert in the field of nutrition from Tufts University, and other concerned “adults” wrote letters to the editor to the Times critical of the Chancellor’s ban. The student’s published a link to The Times letters on their facebook page. The Time’s found the issue newsworthy. Maybe you could reconsider your view that Gotham is negligent in covering the student’s point of view. This is not a black and white issues but an issue worthy of discussion by people with different points of view.

A student eats about 1100 meals a year, and only 360 of them are controlled by schools, if the students eat 2 meals a day for 180 days a year. That means that more than 2/3 of the meals are taken outside the school. Student caloric intake has increased since the 60s and 70s, I’ll agree, but most of that has been a result of the 740 meals outside school. Furthermore, all factors that increase student metabolism have been reduced. Budget cuts on athletic programs and emphasis on test preparation have reduced the number of calories students burn during a school day.

If you took an high school AP Environmental course you would learn that every decision you make has some negative consequences, and that balancing those trade offs is necessary in order to make a sound decision. Drinking from a reusable cup seems to be much better than a disposable cup until you consider the energy, water and pollutants involved in repeatedly washing that cup. I believe that these students are putting these kinds of lessons to practice.

To suggest that getting rid of bake sales in NYC is going to keep a child from developing type II diabetes is an absolute distortion of any reasoning process. Remember that the NYCDOE isn’t restricting bake sales, it is BANNING them altogether. Bake sales help to pay for activities that in some ways increase the metabolic rates of students, such as sports clubs, after school activities and school trips. We should balance the calories gained by eating an occasional cupcake against the calories lost when students are actively involved in their school instead of sitting home at the TV or computer. This isn’t a fight against Frito Lay or Coca Cola, so your application of arguments used in San Francisco are irresponsible here. While your intentions are certainly honorable, your analysis is poor science that borders on educational malpractice.

I tried to post here, as I did on those two student Facebook groups, links to two Youtube clips showing what San Francisco students have been doing instead of fighting back against bake sale bans. The post has been delayed for many hours, so I’ll give a map without using a link.

On www dot youtube dot com — search for

We Need Better School Food

and

Fruity Girls

– both posted by Baseballrodent.

Just to get you all into the loop, also, check out healthy food goddess Marion Nestle of NYU. Her blog today, www dot foodpolitics dot com, addresses some NYC school food issues, though not this one (yet).

On http://www.youtube.com — search for

We Need Better School Food

and

Fruity Girls

– both posted by Baseballrodent.

Just to get you all into the loop, also, check out healthy food goddess Marion Nestle of NYU. Her blog today, www dot foodpolitics dot com, addresses some NYC school food issues, though not this one (yet).

1. It’s impossible to monitor what’s in food items being brought in and sold freelance by parents and students.
2. There’s a whole issue of “competitive sales” and the harm they do to the National School Lunch Program. Here’s an explanation from a FAQ on our Student Nutrition and Physical Activity website, maintained entirely by parent volunteers, BTW:

Why are fundraising food sales during the school day a concern?
The federally subsidized National School Lunch Program (NSLP – see link at the end of
this document) provides the “lunch-line” menus at all schools, offering free or reduced priced
lunch to low-income students. Other students pay full (though reasonable) price
for those meals. The lunch-line meals must conform to federal nutritional standards
(including federally mandated limits on fat content and requirements for vitamin,
mineral, and protein content), and the menu is the same in all SFUSD schools at all grade
levels. Greater participation in the lunch program could support higher-quality cuisine for
all students.
“Competitive food” sales at lunchtime by parent and student organizations are common in
high schools and some middle schools. Those sales drain money from the lunch-line
operation, which then reduces the quality of those meals and drives more students to the
competitive operations in a downward spiral. When the lunch-line menus drop in quality
because kids choose competitive foods instead, those who suffer are the younger children
(since elementary schools don’t have competitive sales) and children who can’t afford the
other foods being sold.

I would link to this and other documents except for Gotham Schools’ feature delaying posts containing links until they’re moderated (is someone carefully viewing the student videos I linked to last night?). For anyone who wants to make a thorough study of the issues on our volunteer-parent-run website, it’s www dot sfusdfood dot org.

By the way, our policy does allow for bake sales outside school hours, as a compromise. The policy was created in response to DAILY fundraising food sales in some of our high schools.

I’m kind of blown away by the “gotcha!” response to my “confession” of being a volunteer advocate for children’s health and the indication that that bears ANY resemblance to the activities of the craven deceiver Caroline Hoxby, who is of course in it with the big-money interests.

* P.S. Note that if the bake sales all swore to use SPLENDA, I bet they’d still be banned. Hoping I’m wrong, but…

I can see the politics here are different, but the facts and the health crisis are the same. I’m hearing all the same arguments we heard six and seven years ago (“but we really need the money!”) — though I’m surprised to hear them from such obviously intelligent people. We’ll obviously have to agree to disagree.

New Yorkers reserve the right to reject false choices. In that respect, it may be California in the dark ages. And I say this with a heavy heart, as a native.

Obviously Prop. 13 is a disaster (a 31-year-old one), as is California’s out-of-control initiative process. But as far as school food, you’re where we were seven or eight years ago.

The interesting thing is that when we started moving to get junk food out of our schools, it was parent advocacy against the mighty soda and snack-industry interests.

I haven’t read the NYT mag yet (it’s really expensive here, and neighbors pass it on to me after they’ve done the crossword!), but here’s a piece I wrote up a while ago about the arguments we were hearing for some years:

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