According to the National Soft Drink Association (NSDA), consumption of soft
drinks is now over 600 12-ounce servings (12 oz.) per person per year.
Since 1978, soda consumption in the U.S. has tripled for boys and doubled for girls.

Soft drink companies spend billions on advertising. Much of these marketing
efforts are aimed at children through playgrounds, toys, cartoons, movies,
videos, charities and amusement parks; and through contests, sweepstakes,
games and clubs via television, radio, magazines and the internet. Their efforts
have paid off. Last year soft drink companies grossed over $57 billion in sales
in the us alone, a colossal amount. (taken from an article, Soft Drinks,
America's other drinking problem, by Judith Valentine, PHD)

Questions for debate:

Should soft drink companies be allowed to market their products specifically to
children, through such avenues as schools, Boys and Girls Club of America,
Amusement Parks, television ads and countless other kid-oriented venues?

Are schools and children's organizations justified in making contracts with soft
drink companies to bring in revenue for extra-curricular activities?

Should soft drink companies be forced to run ads that would warn parents
of the addictive/unhealthy aspects of soft drink consumption?

This is a parent issue.
The parents should control how much soda the kids are drinking.
This is no place for the government to get involved.

I think it's perfectly fine to advertise in the public arena, but I am completely against advertising of any form in public schools. To advertise to a captive audience in a government run building is just plain wrong. I have always been unsettled by seeing the "tickers" in the hall brought to you by "XYZ company." Or the advertisement posters in the hallway of the high school I attended. I thought it was disgraceful that a public school would have to stoop so low for money.
Sponsoring, fine. Advertising, no.
The sports teams at school would be sponsored by a bunch of local businesses and they'd hang their sign: Sponsored by so-and-so. Which, is a perfectly reasonable thing. But some companies have clearly cut deals to have their own advertising displays in the halls. That's ridiculous. Students don't need to be subjected to such crap while supposedly learning.

*edited for clarification AD = advertisement

As to the tangent topic of the poll, kids are huge consumers, why should they not advertise to kids?

I don't drink many sodas because I have a policy against doing things that would further destroy my teeth but hey, you want soda, fine. Your dental bill.

Is that AD as in advertisement or AD as in America's Debate?

Should soft drink companies be allowed to market their products specifically to
children, through such avenues as schools, Boys and Girls Club of America,
Amusement Parks, television ads and countless other kid-oriented venues?

There should be no law against it. This should be somthing each school decides, and hopefully I would like to see the school reject such advertism, but there should be no law. The companies providing any type of sponsorship should of course not have any say in how the school is educating kids. I don't want to see textbooks containing paragraphs about how Coca Cola helped win WW2, or how Pepsi makes the teeth white and strong.

Are schools and children's organizations justified in making contracts with soft
drink companies to bring in revenue for extra-curricular activities?

Justified? Sure.

Should soft drink companies be forced to run ads that would warn parents
of the addictive/unhealthy aspects of soft drink consumption?

Nope. This is the parents responsibility. This is one thing that parents should know.

Welcome Veb! Good to have you here at good 'ol America's Debate. Your line of thinking has been my viewpoint for quite some time on this. I posted something similar in a different thread, but now I'm not so sure about it anymore.

I don't believe that warning labels should be on soft drinks, the ingredients should be significant warning enough, so on that line of thought, we are in agreement. Parents do have the right to regulate how much pop their children drink and such, but if you allow pop at school, that pretty much negates parental influence. In essence, it is the company going around the parents to get junior to consume their product. So in that regard, no-soda companies should not be allowed to put in their machines and make contracts with schools. They should only be allowed to put in milk & juice drinks and that's about it.

Not only that, but we have to look at the health of our youth, which is more expensive(potentially) than any pretended right to have a soda container in a school. Our kids are putting themselves at risk for heart disease, hyptertension, and we've seen the rise of type 2 diabetes according to ABC news If we weren't seeing such a health epidemic, I would be against restrictive measures. To me, it's clear to see that the soda companies are part(not all) of the epidemic of obesity in children.

Should soft drink companies be allowed to market their products specifically to
children, through such avenues as schools, Boys and Girls Club of America,
Amusement Parks, television ads and countless other kid-oriented venues?

Hmm, I have sort of a split response here on this question. I do not see a problem with soft drink companies targeting children in advertising in most circumstances. The companies would be foolish not to do this, children represent a significant portion of their market.

I do have a problem with soft drink companies advertising their products in schools though.

Are schools and children's organizations justified in making contracts with soft
drink companies to bring in revenue for extra-curricular activities?

No I do not believe they are. Schools should realize that their buildings are a place for learning, not to allow companies to post advertising campaigns hoping to turn the children into brand slaves.

The food available at schools is also becoming atrociously unhealthy because of this corporate sponsorship trend. I knew it wasn't great, but I had no idea the extent of the problem until I watched Super Size Me a few months ago.

I can definitely understand the problems faced by a lot of school districts in terms of funding, but selling out to corporations is not the right solution.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) had this to say about soft drinks in schools:


Should soft drink companies be forced to run ads that would warn parents
of the addictive/unhealthy aspects of soft drink consumption?

I don't think they should be required to do this, soft drinks are bad for you but they don't present anywhere near the kind of health problems as say cigarettes.

I think that parents should be solely responsible for making decisions on how much soda their kids should or shouldn't drink. If they want to let their kids load up on soda and run around like chickens with their heads cut off alll night I say let them. I know how I plan to raise my kids when it comes to this. The problem with allowing schools to sell soft drinks (and other junk foods) is that parents have no input into the matter. If this kind of stuff is available at schools, when you give your kid $5 for lunch you can't stop them from spending that on a bag of Doritos and a Coke instead of a healthy and balanced meal.

Thank you Nebraska29.
Assuming that pop is not given away for free at the school, the parents can control the amount of pop a child drinks by regulating the amount of cash that child has. This is only one way for the parent to control this, I am pretty sure we could think of about a million other ways, milk tickets, juice tickets etc.
I have no problems with a school that chooses not to have a soda vending machine, this is great. I just have a problem with a law against it. We already have way too many laws and lawyers, and I would prefer absolutely any other measure to control this.

I feel very confident that the 600 12oz bottles of soda we consume a year has more to do with a general acceptance of this product from the parents. Creating a law against it in the school is just another little enoying micro management from the federal government. Instead, when the kids are in science class, let them take a bottle of Coke, evaporate all the water, and show them all the junk that is inside a bottle - it is pretty disgusting.

BTW, not all juice is all that good, and there are some reports that cow milk is not as good for humans as first tought. They are better than pop, but nothing beats a glass of ice cold water

What sort of law keeps the schools from selling any other product? If anything, product endorsement on school property should require special permission. Is there some separate law requiring a team of lawyers to keep video games off of school property?

Private organizations (including private schools) should be free to accept and distribute cola to their students to raise fund money (with the permission of the parents, who pay the school tuition, of course). Our PUBLIC school system should not endorse and promote such products.

Not schools but through other venues.


Of course they are.


I think they should be aware that they need to run ads on how unhealthy soda consumption is. Addictive? How is it addictive?

Caffeine is an addictive substance. How many people do you know can't go through a day without it? Need it to feel awake, have headaches if/when they quit. Use the reasonability test.

Soft drink companies should not be allowed to market their products in
schools. It not only sends a mixed message to students, it undermines the
parents who work hard to keep their kids from consuming such products.

In most schools children will have health class - a time when they learn about
the food pyramid, nutrition, and basic health principles. There is no way to
successfully indoctrinate a young impressionable mind the fundamentals of
nutrition while pedaling soft drinks in every hallway. It is a huge contradiction.

The basic ingredients in soft drinks

High Fructose Corn Syrup (used in preference to sugar)
Aspartame (used in diet soft drinks)
Caffeine
Phosphoric acid
Citric acid
Artificial Flavors
Tap water (may contain high amounts of fluoride and other contaminants)

(each of the above ingredients has its own ills associated with its consumption,
put them all together and you have one toxic beverage)

A lot of parents simply do not want their children to be tempted by such products,
especially while they are in a learning environment. Also, peer pressure is very
strong, and kids tend to do what other kids are doing. When vending machines
are placed in schools, and the administration is counting on the sales to be a
large portion of the school's revenue, they will inevitably recruit habitual
soft drink consumers. And, that is why the soft drink companies pay the schools
the big bucks. It is because they know that their beverages not only "taste good,"
they are addictive.



Definitely not in public schools. Private schools, clubs, etc. can do as they wish,
but if they have the best interest of kids in mind, they will find more appropriate
ways of raising money.




Yes. They know that their drinks are addictive, and have, and will cause poor
health conditions when used on a regular basis. So, they are responsible to pass
that information along to the consumer. Then, the consumer can make his
decision. I truly believe that most people do not understand just how detrimental
soft drink consumption is to one's health.

I think you may have a good point there doomed_planet. A little bit of a personal anecdote here - Ever since I was in high school I was an avid coke drinker. I consumed a lot of it in high school and college but once I started working it went through the roof. I drank a minimum of two 12 oz cans a day, most days more.

About 2 months ago I had a really bad bout with Kidney Stones, and I'm only 26 (a little young for that affliction). The doctors analyzed the stones and the cause was traced to excessive consumption of soda.

I would consider myself pretty informed as far as health topics go -- not a doctor, but informed -- and I had absolutely no idea drinking sodas like that could cause kidney stones.

I have since completely cut them out of my diet. I'm sure there are other risks that I'm not aware of too when it comes to sodas. I am fairly certain that it is much more than dental problems and caffeine addiction.

Should soft drink companies be allowed to market their products specifically to
children, through such avenues as schools, Boys and Girls Club of America,
Amusement Parks, television ads and countless other kid-oriented venues?
Children are people, people are consumers, in a market driven economy it is impossible to avoid unless one wishes to lock their kids up and strictly monitor all information, experiences and media that their children are exposed to.

Are schools and children's organizations justified in making contracts with soft
drink companies to bring in revenue for extracurricular activities?
If the benefit to the children is to further the recreational and educational experiences for the children than I believe it is a acceptable alliance.

Should soft drink companies be forced to run ads that would warn parents
of the addictive/unhealthy aspects of soft drink consumption?
Maybe if they would like to avoid frivolous lawsuits though personally I am well aware of any related risks and do not require warnings.

In my home I take a counter attack approach to these issues. As opposed to looking outward for society to control my children's exposure to media and junk food, I prefer to teach my children self control. It started when they became old enough to consume sweets and snacks. I have and always will keep a variety of junk food in my home. I also keep a variety of healthy snacks, cheese, Juices and fruits. When I notice my children going a bit overboard on junk food I then recommend for their next snack to be "from a tree" as opposed to from a factory. My kids will say Mom, I'm hungry, can I have a snack and my response is FROM A TREE you may. Sometimes I get Heeems and Haaaws though generally they accept and understand that they have had enough junk that day and it is time to get healthy. Sometimes they just ask on their own for healthy foods and I promptly supply it. I have seen the benefits of this in my 9 yr old daughter as she now is able to budget her school lunch allowance and knows that twice a week she can pick up junk food in the school Cafeteria and still make the money last for the full month (we have pre-paid lunch cards and I write a check every month). Sometimes I actually worry that my kids are too skinny though the pediatrician assures me that they are just right. I realize that this is an unorthodox method of teaching dietary health though in my heart I feel quite confident that theses skills will last a lifetime and in the end they will have more self control and healthier bodies than their mother had. I grew up in a home that rarely had snacks and I found myself binging at every opportunity. In retrospect I think I wanted what I couldn't have 5 times more than most people. As I got older and gained independence my choices in foods were questionable. It took me into my 20's to establish good eating habits. In the end I do not wish to change the ways of the world I only wish to influence how my children perceive it.

Yes they should as long as the aforementioned organizations get something in return and that they have clearly visible warning labels that clearly state how addictive and unhealthy their products are.


Yes along as they have the warning labels as stated above. I don't want my tax dollars going up. I am grateful that soft drink companies would be willing to cover extra-curricular activities. Besides, students exercise anyways. Students are given health class and I think they understand the unhealthy consequences of getting fat and I think they'd be willing to exercise. If someone believes that students should not learn about unhealthy drinks from soda pop machines at school, then that's wrong because we live in a free society where youth can make their own choices. I remember when I was in school and I exercised and drank soda pop. Parents are not the ones who design soft drinks. The makers of the soft drinks are the ones who design them. So they have the responsibility of telling the public if they're products are healthy or not. This is similar to a computer game manufacturer - if someone designs a computer game and kid wants to purchase it at a store, how is he/she going to know what it's like unless he/she is told by the manufacturer or a sales clerk?

Should soft drink companies be allowed to market their products specifically to children, through such avenues as schools, Boys and Girls Club of America, Amusement Parks, television ads and countless other kid-oriented venues? Should soft drink companies be forced to run ads that would warn parents of the addictive/unhealthy aspects of soft drink consumption?

Ultimately, it's the parents job to ensure that their kids are eating and drinking healthy items; kids are usually very well aware of the health risks associated with soft drinks. Kids are told all through elementary and high school about how to eat and drink healthy through various health courses and lectures. Companies should not be prohibited from advertising to kids and teens unless the product is illegal for minors; I have no problem with them choosing to make people aware of the effect of soft drinks on kids.

Are schools and children's organizations justified in making contracts with soft
drink companies to bring in revenue for extra-curricular activities?

I don't have a problem with schools selling unhealthy foods and drinks as much as I have a problem with schools acting as shills for corporations. Kids are capable of making choices when it comes to what they eat or drink. What I don't like is being bombarded by advertisements whenever I enter the building: something just seems so wrong at seeing an ad for Coca-Cola whenever you turn a corner. Schools are public institutions; you don't see a "Drink Pepsi" banner on a judge's bench or a Coca-Cola ad behind the Speaker of the House. Why should I have to see it on the big Coca-Cola calendar behind my teacher? I don't appreciate being treated like a rat in a lab being subjected to massive doses of advertising. Perhaps I wouldn't be so bothered if it weren't so pervasive: limit coke advertising to the coke machine. Instead I have to see it in the classrooms, in the hallways, in the cafeteria, in the gymnasium, and at the football field! I realize that there is a lot of money to be made off of those machines, but kids are going to buy them anyway without the plethora of advertisements.

For the people who disagree with soft drink companies vending their products in schools because soft drinks contribute to the decline of health, would your opinion change if these companies were restricted to selling only beverages that were deemed by a government body to be "healthful"? Such machines could be labeled as "Coke" machines, but would only contain Minute Maid Orange juice in cans or Odwalla juices in can-shaped plastic bottles, and/or even Nestle Chocolate milk. Any product that contains caffeine would be out. I would think this is a reasonable compromise, with specific deals made on a district by district basis as they are now. It would probably mean less money for the schools in terms of advertising, but it would still be more than if there was no deal at all. Coke gets some good PR and schools don't have to sell their souls.

Yes, my opinion would change. I would be all for that option. I know of a school district where the kids tried to get juice machines rather than soda machines frmo a distributor. It turns out that they weren't able to do that because although Coke and Pepsi do sell juice products, they want to push the soda stuff really hard. Perhaps they will change their minds as we have more 15 year olds developing diabetes and other health complications from their products.

This isn't heroin, for Pity's sake, it's soda pop.

As far it being addictive: ask around, nowadays so is eating, sex, internet use, etc., etc. With all the hand-wringing, I think bigger addictions are going unnoticed. Breathing-- do it just once and you'll keep at till you die. Why, that's worse than crack.

How addictive or physically harmful does something have to be
before it reaches your threshhold of what is unhealthy?

The ingredients in soft drinks, by themselves, and when combined
with each other, reaches my threshhold. These companies not
only sell products that are loaded with unhealthy ingredients, they
target our children. To me, that is unacceptable. It may be
fine and dandy to a person who enjoys his daily coke, or to someone
without children.

The question of what the threshhold is, or should be is not a question for the Government to answer in this case. This is up to the parent to answer, and no one else. When one person labels it a hazard, the other might just say the first is simply over protective. Which is right? Who decides? The Republicans when George Bush is in office? or the Democrats if John Kerry get the office?

No thanks to either, I will take care, and teach my own family.

Okay. However, companies, such as Coca Cola, should have no right to
go behind parents backs, and into their children's learning environments,
to, in essence, recruit habitual users and turn a profit. That is crossing the line.

ummm, I am sorry, please explain how they are "going behind parents backs". Are the parents of these children unable to vote for thier school board members, or visit the schools to see what vending machines are in them?

Most parents know what goes on in their childs schools, but some don't, I do not think regulation for those that wish to be ignorant is the role of the Government.

No line is being crossed that I can see. Now granted, I don't live on the "left coast", and this is probably a perfect example of why I never would.

The fevered cries of 'who will think of the children?!' and the utter horror toward all things that may (or may not) be completely healthy to consume seem to betray something larger.

I say 'seem', because it is just a personal impression I get from the multitude of voices with that semi-hysterical pitch.

But has someone failed to inform Americans in this enlightened age that good health and, yea, life itself is not infinitely sustainable, regardless of one's cholesterol level, state of fitness, alcohol consumption (or lack of it), use of tobacco (or refraining from it), vitamin intake, affinity for organic foods, or use of herbal remedies?

The 'experts' can't even decide what's good for you and what's not. How many times have they flip-flopped on caffeine, red wine, red meat, fish, high fibre carbs, blah blah blah? The rules change from week to week.

I would submit that the anxiety whipped up by the intense desire to 'tweak my lifestyle just perfectly so I'll live 110 years' is perhaps more damaging than having a couple of cheeseburgers and a coke when you want them.

No one produces pearls instead of feces-- regardless of how anal-retentive they are.

As a Senior High School Student and a want to be teacher I veiw this subject as unimportant. Parents should not be worrying about if there kids are drinking soda in school. As a high school student I watch my peers around me. Soda isnt all they are drinking. Alcoholism as young as 13 is really big right now. So many parents do not have a clue about their children thinking. Parents need to get together and teach their kids good habits and good morals and choices. Right now what we really need is education in drug use. REAL education. Growing up I have seen alot of things with drugs that no kid should know about ever in their lives. I learned it from school. Parents need to worry about their high school student who is taking Addaral for ADHD because its very easy to hide now a days and steal right from the nurses office and sell them in school for 3-8 bucks a pill. Kids all day are snorting pills getting drunk and smoking weed in school as young as 6th grade. So parents really need to worry about their kids getting into worse things then soda. I'm 18 years old I'm finishing high school and I have a little girl. I'm not going to worry about her drinking soda but I reather worry about her getting into drugs and sex to young.

With all due respect, there may be worse vices than soda pop, like
pot and alcohol (two drugs), yet soda falls into a similar category.
It is an addictive substance that kids get hooked on.

It is a question of what you deem acceptable. If you feel soda pop
consumption is okay, then of course you will have no problem seeing
companies peddle their pop to kids. Regardless of where one stands
on the subject of soda as it relates to the well-being of children, schools
are crossing the line when they, by allowing advertising and vending
machines in their schools, take away a parent's control of what their
children are exposed to in a learning environment.

I understand what you are saying but by high school you should be able to decide if you drink soda or not! come on now! its kind of sad people are worried over soda! grade school no i dont think there should be any soda there middle school no. but high school is a diffrent story! why shouldnt a 17 18 year old kid be able to buy soda?