School Soda Ban Still Leaves Bad Taste
I’m all for evolving. But as Darwin noted, these things take time.
Without centuries available to me, I’d better start now in trying to get with the program that’s phasing out so-called junk food and canned sodas in California schools. It’s now state law (although with delayed implementation), with the hope that we’ll have healthier and more attentive students.
What kind of oddball would be against that?
Not me, except that four years ago I columnized about sodas in high school vending machines and kind of, well, sort of, actually ... all right, I admit it -- I said they shouldn’t be banned. The fact that I am a Pepsiholic had nothing to do with it.
My reasoning doesn’t matter, although it had something to do with freedom of choice and that teens like the stuff and that if they can’t buy it from machines on campus, they’ll just get in their cars and go get it elsewhere. I was also influenced by Los Alamitos High School Principal Dan Brooks, who generally shared my thoughts. In fact, he gave me most of them.
I wrote then that the Legislature surely wouldn’t consider banning sodas on high school campuses. Another incorrect prediction: Last September, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed into law the two bills designed to fight obesity and its deleterious side effects.
SB 965, the no-soda-in-high-school bill, passed the legislative chambers by 47-28 and 26-11 margins. Sodas already are verboten in lower grades. SB 12, the junk-food ban -- which sets standards for fat, sugar and caloric content on all food sold in schools -- passed with almost identical numbers, so I can see which way the wind is blowing.
I asked Nichole Munoz-Murillo, a consultant to the bills’ sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Martha Escutia of Whittier, if the legislation didn’t smack of Big Brother.
Uh, no, she says.
“That just wasn’t part of the discussion,” she says, politely. “People have really evolved and gotten past that. [The legislation] just makes sense.”
And the idea behind the bills? “It’s just a step in the right direction,” Munoz-Murillo says. “This is one of many things that’ll have to be accomplished to really see obesity rates come down. The benefits of having kids in class who are not on a sugar high, who are going to be able to concentrate and learn better ... that’s just as important as the obesity aspect.”
Both laws take effect in July 2007, with the soda ban having a second phase to be completed by July 2009. The delay will let school districts find alternatives to the snack food and sodas now generating pretty big bucks from high school campus vending machines. Munoz-Murillo says some studies have shown that those alternatives will prove just as lucrative.
Of that, I’ll have to be convinced. Still, I want kids to be healthy. If my choices are pro-Pepsi or pro-teenager, I must back the teens. I don’t want them becoming undisciplined soda-swilling lugs like me, prone to deep sleeps after the caffeine buzz wears off.
What concerns me, however, is the government dictating food choices. Cigarettes cause cancer; I can live with sanctions on them. But a cherry Coke?
Adding to my paranoia is an op-ed piece The Times published last week in which someone wrote that anti-cola forces are aligning to take on soft drinks in the same way that others took on Big Tobacco.
Say it ain’t so.
Like I said, I want to evolve. It’s not like I’m a fanatic defender of candy bars in high school. Caffeine and sugar aren’t good for teens, and I don’t think they have a constitutional right to have Pepsi machines on campus. We sure didn’t when I was in high school.
I had hoped to reach Dan Brooks, my guru/principal from a few years ago, to see if he’s evolving too. Unfortunately, I tried too late in the day Friday and missed him.
Chances are, he’s probably way ahead of me and wondering why it’s taking me so long to see the light.
Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He can be reached at (714) 966-7821 or at dana.parsons@latimes.com. An archive of his recent columns is at www.latimes.com/parsons.
