California has banned junk food from being sold in all of its public schools in an effort to battle the obesity epidemic that is facing America.
link

I am a high school senior at a California public school and I recently got in a heated debate over this very issue with my English teacher. I believe that schools have an obligation to promote healthy eating habits. Many kids have terrible diets and although it is not a direct responsibility of public education to fix this, I believe that the government has every right to regulate what is sold on school campuses. My English teacher argued that junk food in schools is not the only reason so many kids are overweight-- no, but it sure is a good place for the government to start doing something. I am also in the student government and every day I listen to the teachers and students complain how the new rules only hurt the income of school organizations. I understand that healthy food might not sell as well as candy or soda, but I feel that it is a necessary step to promote healthier habits. Schools aren't about to start selling cigarettes (even if they only sold them to students 18 or older) because it would be endorsing an extremely unhealthy habit.

I saw one teacher nearly in tears the other day as she complained that students are choosing to not eat at all because of the changes. It is true that at my school many students are not eating lunch at all but I think that this is due to the fact that it can take as long as 20 minutes to wait in the lunch lines for food when the lunch break is only 30 minutes long-- a problem caused by overcrowding, not the ban on junk foods.

As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another, but above all try something." Obesity is a serious problem and I think that most people agree that something needs to be done. I have yet to hear, however, a reasonable alternative course of action from the many people I know opposed to these restrictions.

So now that I've given my two cents, the questions for debate:

1. Should public schools ban the sale of junk food?

2. What other actions should be taken in addition to, or instead of, the ban?

As a person who ate plenty of junk food as a kid in high school. (Once downed four Jumbo Honey Buns in a sitting, 620 Calories each if I remember correctly).

I am entirely in agreement with this measure.

The fact is the PE that kids get is already woefully inadequate to the task of burning the calories they take in at lunch. To add to that with the prerequisite three Mountain Dews a day many high-schoolers consume is simply foolish.

If the schools are inadequately funded because of this measure, then it's time the districts cough up more cash, I think putting a dollar value on the health of our nation's school children is entirely the wrong approach.

Other actions should include a requirement to participate in at least a half hour of aerobic exercise a day. Frequent field trips which involve walking and accomplish education are of great help as well.

1. Should public schools ban the sale of junk food?
Yes. There are ways for schools to raise more money or increase productivity. Of course, these other ways would be very unpopular. Besides raising taxes, students, teachers, and most of the general public would also hate to see the school year extended and the summer vacations shortened.

2. What other actions should be taken in addition to, or instead of, the ban?
Schools should also close down some of their parking lots and encourage students to ride their bikes to school when it's not raining or snowing. City governments could work to make the roads more bicycle friendly.

I graduated from high school in 1983, and a few years back, I went to pick up one of my teenage nieces who attended the same high school I had in my sophomore year, graduating in 1999. I was shocked and stunned to find the cafeteria full of vending machines and junk booths from local fast food chains.

Still, even in my day, the school offered what I would term junk food -- there were soda machines back then (although they were locked up except during lunch and after school) and we had a school store where you could buy candy bars and chips. The cafeteria sold ice cream novelties and milkshakes. Moreover, the high starch content of most cafeteria offerings was a significant factor in the overall nutritional equation.

While I agree with you that schools should not be selling junk food, I also agree -- to a point -- with your teacher, who is rightfully objecting to the school being tasked with the duty of teaching students proper nutrition -- a responsibility that really belongs in the home. Children do, after all, eat daily for five years before they ever sit in a classroom. If the foundation for good eating habits hasn't already been laid by then, trying to monitor the habits of surly teenagers seems futile at best.

As for what measures should be taken instead of banning junk food sales -- this is a complex issue. My abbreviated answer would be that schools should be held more accountable for the spending of the money they DO get -- more emphasis on academics and less on sports and other extracurricular stuff; fewer 'self esteem' programs and more three Rs; and the usual conservative remedies. When I was in high school, I took a fluff class called "Quest," a late-seventies version of an antidrug program that really amounted to an hour of quasi-therapy in a roomful of kids trying to avoid real work. Moreover, the last year and a half of my high school career was spent taking such "fluffy" classes because I'd already completed all the academic credits I needed for graduation. This is ridiculous. Schools should require four years of the basics -- English, mathematics, science, and history -- and not give students so much fluff.

Oh, dear. You asked a simple question about selling Cheetos and you got a lecture from a forty-year-old blowhard. Sorry, kiddo. lol

I must disagree that any person's eating habits are set by the age of five. I don't eat the way I did as a five year old, or even a twenty year old for that matter.

My oldest child is in the second grade. He discovered candy at school. Up until the day he started kindergarten, he hated candy and most sweets. Animal crackers were the sweetest things he would eat. He went trick-or-treating for fun and threw it all out at the end of the night. By about halfway through his kindergarten year he was asking for candy and cookies every single day...sometimes up to six times a day. He wouldn't usually get it, but he'd ask.

My answer to the question to be debated is HECK YES! The teens won't eat anything but garbage so they skip lunch? If that's the case they mustn't be very hungry to begin with (no one refused food during the depression) so why throw fatty food at them? I don't think that offering fatty food and soda while teaching nutrition does much for the teen diet. Threats of future heart disease aren't very compelling to a 15 year old.

Mrs P,

I didn't mean people's eating habits are set -- I mean that if children aren't encouraged and taught to eat a healthy diet BEFORE they go to school, then it will be harder for them to establish healthy eating habits for life. You say that your son wanted sugary treats after starting kindergarten -- that might be because he was exposed to school parties and the eating habits of children whose parents weren't so conscientious as you about limiting their kids' sweets intake.

I don't have children, so perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about. However, I do eat regularly, so I'm at least semi-qualified to speak, right? lol

Vibiana

I'll jump on the bandwagon and say that this sounds like a very good idea. Having gone to high school in California in the early 1970's, I'm a little surprised that schools have vending machines at all. I suppose times change. When I was in high school, I had to take Physical Education every year. From what younger people tell me, that's not true anymore. I hated it, but it was better than nothing at all.

Young people get plenty of soft drinks and fatty snacks from other sources, so it's not like they are going to suffer very much. Schools should have other sources of money, so the loss of sales from vending machines is a minor factor.

I have to agree that eating habits can change very much throughout life. I do not eat at all the way I did in my twenties. Much of this is just habit. Do most people drink Coke because they really like it, or because they are in the habit of it?

As for what else schools can do, that's a tricky question. It would be nice if Physical Education classes were not the source of so much misery. Maybe they could be integrated with the teaching of basic, accurate information about the benefits of good nutrition and physical activity (while trying to avoid being preachy about it.)

I don't think merely banning the sale of junk food is enough if they want to take measures against the obesity problem.

You want a thinner, fitter America? Great, but telling kids they can't eat their Doritoes and gummy bears isn't nearly enough.
Spend money on getting better food served to the students. Those of us that have been to school know what kind of garbage they feed us.
And on top of that, encourage students to exercise. Bring in guest speakers to talk about all their grand adventures of mountain biking or whatever.

I am currently up in arms about this topic. I have a six year old who is coming home from school with candy just about every day. Unfortunately he is also coming home with a lunchbox still full of lunch. My home is not a place where junk food is readily accesible to the youngsters. We get dessert if we finish our dinner....and this is the only sweets they are given throughout the day. At holidays we may allow them additional pieces of candy....however, the candy stays in the kitchen and has to be given out by a parent. If we allowed the children to have it in their room....it would all be eaten within two days.

I HATE the idea of candy being in the schools. To me, candy being either given or sold to students is promoting really, really bad eating habits. I understand that class sizes are larger....but I beg that teachers consider my childs health before attempting to bribe their students to behave, do well, read that book....WHATEVER. In my experience little kids will adore simply being told that they did a good job....they don't need the candy backup.

Kids are going to eat cruddy food, if given the choice. I know I would have when I was a that age. What kid is going to pick chicken breast over Pizza??? (Okay...some kids maybe would but most would not). I think that nutritious eating habits should be taught in the home but maintained and encouraged in the school. I don't want my money going towards pop and candy and junk food.

Bottom line is: If the kids are eating junk, they aren't eating healthy stuff. When you eat junk you get your sugar rush and then you crash thirty minutes later. So about the time you are sitting down to learn those new calculus formulas....your brain has turned off and you are drowsy. Why?? Because the only think you ate was doritos and Mountain Dew. If you had chosen the chicken breast (or, heck, even the school made pizza....you may actually be able to pay attention).

I want my kids to be nutritious.
I want my kids to be alert while at school.
I don't want them eating crud that is going to prevent them from eating a nutritious lunch and, quite possibly, a nutritious dinner.
I want them to have all their teeth by the time they are 40.
I don't want them to be ridiculed, later on, when they are overweight.
I want them to learn that food is fuel.....not comfort.

'nuff said!!

Becca

Dear Becca, i wish to address some things you said.



Technically that would be to take their freedoms away. But i know the U.S does not recognize childrens right, so thats another issue i guess.



I dont know how american schools work, but Swedish and Icelandic schools do not give away candy to "bribe" the students. So i dont know about this. They are well behaved and acting compared to american children very well. If this is the different school systems or poor parenting on american part, i do not know.

But something is doing it.



First off all, taste of fod is subjective. And i would even go so far to say that your analogy is a really bad one. Chicken is not exactly seen as bad food is it?

Second part would be that Pizza is not unhealthy, or in any way "junk food" (however You define it). More or less everything is good for you to eat (which is suppose to be eaten). Its the amount you eat.

Instead of punish your children(child) because You "HATE the idea" that they do this. Why not instead give them a healthy choice of eating whatever they want in a moderated form, togehter with getting good exercise? (that means moving)



You are not talking about "junk food", you are talking about CANDY, which would NOT give them enought nutrition. "Junk Food" as you call it, would give them plenty of nutrition, and this "suger rush" you where talking about, and keep the blood suger up for a far longer time then any "other" food. So i do not understand this, either you do not know how carbohydrates work, or you confused to different subjects(?).





Then allow him or her to eat anything they want in a moderated form togehter with proper exercise. This is the normal way to be healthy. I know the american model is to take a pill, but comeone.



OK.



You seem to have loots of demands on them. Have they any rights at all themselves?



I dont know what their teeth have to do with anything. (confused subject again?)



I think they should be ridiculed if they are overweight. If so, perhaps they get a reason to become more healthy. (the exercise we where talking about?).



This is almost an entire different topic. Most people in the world enjoy food, hence its a state of comfort (happiness, relaxed, and so forth).

I love eating food. I Enjoy it. And i feel comfort in eating, as this assures my survival.

1. Should public schools ban the sale of junk food?
No. I don't think this will make children thin. Junk food is not the enemy, nutritional education (taught by parents and schools) as well as poor physical education classes and at home is a problem. Taking away something only makes you want it more. So how is that going to help when the kids can run to the corner store and stuff their pockets full of candy because they were told they can't have it? Children need to learn at an early age how to make good choices. Taking away choice is not going to teach you that. They are just going to stuff themselves silly when they can.

2. What other actions should be taken in addition to, or instead of, the ban?
I think they could limit the amount of junk food that is sold. Offer a variety of items from healthier to not so healthy.

Why not make the kids actually do physical education? Why not teach nutritional education? Why not have the parents teach these things too? Don't allow your kids sit in front of the tellie or play video games. Why not get them outside. Why not do physical things with them on the weekends? Also if your kids are coming home with the lunch uneaten because they stacked up on junk food, why aren't you dealing with it? Take their extra money away? If you do that all ready great but I bet there are a lot of parents who are not parenting and love to blame the schools.

I am a strong believer in that thing they call balance.
Focusing on physical wellbeing can not be accomplished by only looking in one direction. Food and what we nourish our bodies with is just as important as how we move our bodies.

I would never not in a million years let my kids eat that stuff they serve up at school and claim is food. I think the main basis of disagreement here in this debate is the meaning or definement of junk food. I happen to feel pizza..more specifically the kind they buy frozen that has some infinite shelf life that can be heated in a microwave and somehow come out toasty..is junk food. As is hamburgers, hot dogs, chicken nuggets, french fries, tater tots, fruit in syrup, most flavored yogurts, baloney, canned veggies etc.

Our kids eat far too many processed foods and the school lunches are entirely made up of high sodium, artificially flavored, preservatively fresh processed items. It is junk food and I can't imagine you will achieve much physical wellbeing with a diet based on these "foods".

In the UK they have this guy called Jamie Oliver he is a chef and he did a show all about school lunches and he showed what ingredients went into the foods the kids were served in the lunchroom. It is just disgusting and I wish someone would make it as apparent as he did over here.

Yup. I particuarly enjoyed the sequence where he, in a classroom of kids, showed them how to make heir own chicken nuggets. Started with chicken carcasses after most of the meat was cut from them, he "mechanically reconstituted" the "meat" (put them, bones and all, into a blender, and whizzed them until it was all a soft, pink, evil-smelling mush). He then added beef fat, fillers, flavourings, preservatives, and the rest of the list of the ingredients; shaped them; coated them with breadcrumbs, and fried them.

When he'd finished, he offered the kids that had been watching a plate of freshly-cooked chicken wings, and a plate of the nuggets he'd just made. Not one child opted to eat the nuggets.

And, one thing bucket failed to mention, Jamie Oliver's series, and the associated petition he organised, changed British government policy. School catering contracts had been awarded on a lowest bidder basis. Oliver secured extra funding, and assurances than minimum nutritional standards would be (re)introducted in British state schools.

But this is not just a schools problem. Parents find themselves eating the same junk, because the whole society and economy has come to depend on both parents being at work, and on them working ever longer hours to keep the productivity increases coming. They themselves feel time-poor, and junk food is quick to prepare and serve. Plus, many people under 40 who are today's parents have grown up in the fast-food culture themselves, and may not know how to prepare and cook fresh food quickly. (Most of the people I know who enjoy cooking have bought into the haute cuisine idea that everything has to be really elaborate and take hours to prepare, which is why they only do it at weekends.)

And the supermarkets have shifted to long-life, comparatively flavourless varieties of fresh produce which reduce their supply chain and waste costs, so it's harder to get real quality meat & vegetables, because the specialist grocers and butchers which could have supplied such produce have gone out of business in the face of supermarket competition.

Schools are a place to start, but are not the whole solution in improving the national diet.

I heard tell of a similar incident in the States, where a chef told the children about all the chemicals and additives in a box of instant macaroni and cheese. He prepared a box and then showed the kids how to prepare the dish from scratch, and not one of them preferred the commercial variety.

I dont think that ALL junk food needs to be banned from schools. I think that schools should be making a very good effort to serve the children healthy meals and watch what they are feeding children, seeing as obsity among youth is a growing problem. However just watching their junk food intake at school is not going to completely solve the problem of obese kids, parents need to take action for their children and make sure that they are properly feeding them and that they are engaging in lots of physical activity.

I understand that school is a place to start but BANNING junk food is not a problem solving method, there are several things that need to happen.

ok, ive told people this many times; ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO CONTROL OUR DIETS!!!!!!!

Kids or adults. Its massive money-spending endeavours like this that put us into debt and raise taxes. I'm all for kids eating healthier, but that should be up to the parents to control, the government needs to get out of our personal choices, it is limiting too many freedoms.

1. Should public schools ban the sale of junk food?

I can only say that I can't see why they shouldn't. It's governement property, and the kids are getting a government education for free. The governement isn't asking them to go against anything they believe in personally or asking them to do something that would harm them, infact quite the opposite. If these kids wanna pack the fat on their butts they can ask their mothers or fathers to sack up a nice jelly doughnut and four bottles of Coca-Cola before they come to school and everything should be just fine come lunch break. These teachers and student bodies who rely on the residual monies earned by the sale of the crap they were feeding the kids should try using a little creativity (something they seemed to sapped of) and come up with new ways to get their kick backs. I know that Coca-Cola used to write checks for a few thousand dollars every month to the Associated Student Body for percentages in soda machine revenue... ...kinda shady if ya ask me.


2. What other actions should be taken in addition to, or instead of, the ban?

We could try making PE a little more rigorous. I think to pass PE I had to be able to run a 10 minute mile, do 60 crunichies in a minute and do one pull up...pathetic!

It's hardly free....have you checked property taxe rates lately? Further, if it's the government's, it's really ours. Therefore, it's ours to determine what we eat, don't eat, etc. in it.

Here's my take...I'm all for schools educating kids to eat healthy. However, I'm not really sure that taking away their freedom of choice and exerting this level of governmental control over their lives is really the proper message to be sending. Hard to educate our children that we have a system based on freedom by taking it away, isn't it? Keep in mind...kids have a much higher metabolism. In fact, we all grew up around just such junk food, and we turned out ok, didn't we? (Hint..if we didn't...we're in no shape to be making any rules, are we?).

A further point...I don't think the government really has sufficient information to be making such decisions. They're probably 30 or 40 years behind in nutrional science (these are the same people still stuck on the food pyramid, remember?). What exactly would constiture 'junk food'? What about a protein bar? If protein bars aren't included...how would that make kids without one feel? This would just create a whole mess of other problems, that, I think, are best simply avoided.


2. What other actions should be taken in addition to, or instead of, the ban?

Making healthy alternatives available.

True, and our elected representatives who speak for the people have spoken and said that the majority of people who placed them in office would like to see that the schools offer only nutritious foods. This in every way constitutes the voice of the people and in no way keeps people from making decisions for themselves because there is not a ban on students bringing in their own sodas and candy or other forms of junk food.



Healthy alternatives have always been available, at least when I was in school only 8 years ago. They haven't removed apples, bannanas or oat meal in that time have they? Kids probably just tend to but potato chips and sodas more often than milk and apples when they are given the choice.

It is not just a matter of fat kids..but healthy ones too. Diabetes is now a children's disease too. Junk food is not healthy it is that simple. And what we did back in the day should not always dictate what we do now. We have to progress even if it is just a tiny itty bitty move forward.

At my children's school they offer pizza every single day as an alternative to six year olds. Do you honestly believe a six year old is old enough and mentally equipped to make a decision about what is the better choice for their health?

And you complain about government control but it is already under government control. The schools never ask the parents what they would like to see fed to their children. And low income kids have no choice to eat this junk because their parents often can't afford to pack them a healthy alternative.

1.) Well, now that I am actually in high school and the vending machines don't have time locks on them... coupled with my libertarian streak... my view on this has changed considerably. Public schools have every right to sell products to a consumer if it is legal and readily available. It is the consumers right to choose what they will or will not eat/drink when the choices are given to them.

2.) Well, Health classes aren't helping... I can tell you firsthand. I gave up sodas and sugars a long time ago but I will never prevent people from enjoying them if they so choose. You, as a buyer, must decide what you will or will not consume even if it may be an underlying risk to your health/development. My friend can not go a day at school without a soda before classes, after third period, between fifth and six periods and one after school or after practice. Is it my place to step in and tell him not to drink? No. It is not our governments place either.

I find the "it's not the government's place to police eating" comments sort of ironic. That's exactly what the government used to do, back before people got the idea that six-year-olds should be able to choose pizza for lunch five days a week.

I attended K-12 during the years 1970-1983. From K-6 I had NO choice whatsoever about what I got to eat for lunch -- the cafeteria served the same plate lunch to every kid. In junior high I could choose a sandwich or salad instead, and I could supplement with an ice cream bar or some cookies.

In high school I got the additional choice of a milkshake, chips, etc. Still, I don't recall the array of junk foods currently on offer in school lunchrooms -- and to really young kids.

I would have no problem at ALL with schools offering one or two plate lunches per day and as few "extra" choices as possible. If kids want to be choosy, let them bring lunch from home. If the economy stays in the toilet like it is, the sooner the little rugrats learn to brown-bag it, the better off they'll be. LOL Besides, home-packed lunches return control to parents, and if it were REALLY up to parents to see that their kids ate the right foods, perhaps they'd step up and do it.

No one is saying you can't eat what you want to eat. The law just prohibits the sale of those items on campus. If you want to eat junk, bring it from home, or stop somewhere on the way to school. It is not the school's responsibility to provide you a market as a consumer, you are there to get an education, not a market of goods.

1. Should public schools ban the sale of junk food?
I wouldn't exactly want public schools to ban anything per say, because even "junk food" has validity. I know its unhealthy and probably made from trashy raw materials, but I still enjoy it sometimes, and in small doses it has as much validity as any other food.

I also think, despite my strong libertarian beliefs, that it wouldn't hurt it, if more healthier foods got a front seat in public schools. Here in Denmark we don't have the same problems with junk food being served (most bring their own food, as it's often not even possible to buy any food at school), but if public schools served food here I would certainly wish that the selection of foods represent a crosssection of what people normally eat at home, and that certainly is not mainly junk food. The impression I get from this debate is, that at a lot of schools in the USA the kids don't even have a choice - it's either junk food or nothing - and that's no choice at all. There should always be a healthy alternative. Until I recently, before I got my masters, I ate in the university cantina everyday and they certainly served junk food, but usually I chose the healthy alternative and anybody should have the ability to do that.

That being said, even though I don't think a total ban is in order, I certainly recognize the rights of schools to ban certain kinds of foods on their property and maybe it is warranted in extreme cases. Loss of money from sales should be no factor in this. Its not the goal of schools to make money on what students buy.

2. What other actions should be taken in addition to, or instead of, the ban?
I think more focus on exercise would be a good start. Both in school time, but also in trying to encourage kids to exercise in their own time. Sports are fun too.

I'm not sure that the schools offer "junk food or nothing," so much as the fact that school lunch budgets are so tight that offering junk food is the only way schools can break even. The plate lunches when I was going to school consisted of a meat, a vegetable, and a starch. I think schools now use two starches part of the time, because it's cheaper and their budgets are stretched.

The only way parents can be sure kids are offered healthy food for lunch is to pack lunch at home. Even then, you have no control over whether it gets eaten. LOL

I am not sure I see your connect to the point I was addressing. I never meant to imply, and pardon me if it was such, that the school HAD to provide fattening products to students. The real issue here is that people are addicted and cannot go a day without caffeine or sugary substances, you are right that they can bring it from home, fine. But the fact remains that you cannot ban something simply because of its unhealthy properties because we as Americans have the right to do to our bodies what we will within the reasonable limits of the law.

I don't think anybody is suggesting a ban of junk foods brought from home. Declining to provide junk food is not the same thing as banning it outright.

Forgive me if this sounds insulting, it is not intended to, but people are missing the point I am trying to make. I do not like the ideas of schools providing junk food but I do not think it should be banned. If the school does ban it from being sold at school chances are that kids will bring it on the campus of schools anyway. The point I am backing is that banning it from sale at school will not solve a problem where health or safety is concerned because, as you say Vibiana, junk food can still be brought from one's home.

At what age do you consider a human a consumer. Conception...8th week...birth...?

No one but my husband and I have the right to decide what my child will and will not consume for lunch...unless of course I give my permission. Parents are not asked or consulted about school lunches at school. The only way a parent can exert any control is buy packing their own child's food.

For anyone interested in what kids in elementary school generally have to eat here is the menu for my school district who gets very creative with adjectives.

school menu

Also cost is one of the considerations for the type of food they serve at school but I know in my area it is how well it transports too. They have built our schools with these huge commercial kitchens..very costly (and I know kitchens) and what do they use them for..to re-heat food that is already prepared and shipped in.

I don't know if I have a solid position on this yet but I figured I'd chime in a few rambling thoughts anyways.

First off, the Federal government doesn't or shouldn't have control over schools. Schools are supposed to be controlled at a local level or, I guess, at the state level. So don't expect to see a bill on the floor banning junk food in every public school in America. The simple solution is of course, for the city or district to hold a vote on the banning of junk food and let the people decide. Maybe mix it in with a levy or something

Second, the word "epidemic" is becoming more popular when refering to the state of obesity in America. Isn't the government supposed to do something about epidemics? (The level of severity is a whole new thread, I know) Regardless, we have plenty of what a majority of the people would say are "common sense" nanny laws (seat belts etc.) so why can't we have laws against junk food in schools?


2. What other actions should be taken in addition to, or instead of, the ban?
Revamp health class and get it to focus on nutrition. With the exception of STDs, I can't think of anything I learned in health class that didn't relate to nutrition. When I was in school the nutrition chapter was "vitamins do this, minerals do this, carbs and protein do this, this little pyramid tells you how much to eat. Follow it or you'll feel sluggish and get fat." I think we need to teach the kids how to read the nutrition labels on the side of a box of cookies for later in life when they start watching their weight. Teach them how to find their basil metabolic rate so they know how many calories to consume in a day or how much is too much. Then, explain how a poor diet can affect their immune system when you get on to the chapter about diseases or how it can aid your performance when you talk about exercises.

Education isn't going to stop a kid from eating junk food. Heck, it doesn't even stop me from eating pizza and drinking beer before a race. But, it does help you do something about your weight and health when it starts to become a problem. Girls (and guys) should know the healthy way to drop 5 lbs before springbreak (it ain't Atkins!) and just generally take care of themselves. And since I don't have anyway of wrapping this incoherent jibber-jabber up, I'll leave it at that

Summary:
1. Should public schools ban the sale of junk food?
Not in highschool, defiantly in elementary school, possibly in Jr. High.
2. What other actions should be taken in addition to, or instead of, the ban?
Provide snack tables with healthy food that are available all day like vending machines are.
Main point - Lack of calories is at least as much of a problem in schools as excessive calorie consumption is.

Explanation and argument:
Everyone is so worried about obesity and kids having to many calories, that people seem to forget that teenagers not eating is a problem to. I graduated highschool last year (the PTO insisted they remove the vending machine my senior year). I often would get a pop if I ran out of the house with out breakfast, or the school lunch was unappealing. I never got soda simply because it tasted good, I got it because I needed the calories and caffeine to keep myself alert through class. I believe that low blood sugar and lack of calories (which have been proven to have negative effects on learning) are as much of a problem in our highschools as excessive calorie consumption. Highschool students are notoriously self-conscious about their appearance and usually try to keep themselves thin for the sake of popularity.
For elementary and jr.high schools I agree that the school shouldn't sell pop and candy regularly (bake sales and the like are fine) and give kids food their parents don't approve of because the parents still have a right to control what the kids eat at that age and the kids don't have the judgment to know better.
The other big advantage to pop and vending machines is that they provide quick snacks (with lots of calories and fat) that you can eat during the day, not only at selected times that are often not in tune with the persons natural eating schedule. If we do get rid of vending machines, we need to provide students in another way to get snacks during the day. Maybe just giving them a free alternative & continuously available alternative to junk food would help immensely with the junk food problem. If we provided students a snack table which provided only healthy snacks as a replacement or alternative to vending machines this would give students the ability to get healthy food easily and quickly during the day would reduce their use of vending machines. This would encourage healthy eating habits as well, as all nutritionists will tell you that continually snacking when you are hungry is far healthier than eating large meals. Perhaps we could even provide caffeine at the snack tables in the form of green tea which has been proven to assist weight loss as well as having many other health benefits. The bottom line is that it is at least as important that children eat, and have the opportunity to eat outside of the designated lunch period even if and when they forget to bring extra food to school with them.

I'm a Junior High student in Texas and lots of this junk is being sold. I say BAN it. The schools may lose money... but isn't there a thing called a BAKESALE or a FUNDRAISER. Some of my friends are vegetarians and vegens, and the only thing to eat besides meat-products is junky,trashy foods. This really isn't fair and most of the time the refuse to eat...and the other times they are forced to eat these foods that could be the source of overweight problems (note: I really don't know if thats true but its a problem). Whats sounds better a good educated kid or a hyper kid filled with the inability to pay attention.