The Medical Freedom Channel

The recent push to remove soda pop from the vending machines in the government-run schools smacks of so many levels of hypocrisy and misguided effort, it is hard to know where to begin. It is reminiscent of the efforts to invoke bottle-deposit laws on every American, one state at a time, under the delusion that somehow this will magically eliminate all the paper and plastic trash that mostly litters the highways, streets and vacant lots – while also not adversely affecting other cleanliness and health issues (like the storage of used bottles before they are picked up for recycling). As usual, that “conservation and beautification” move is proving itself far less effective than the much more volunteer-based method of encouraging recycling efforts, in many states where the jackbooters have not yet imposed a “bottle bill.”

But this latest “sugarphobia” kick is one for the books, indeed. Not only is it hypocritical (by singling out sugared soft drinks to the exclusion of everything from junk food to artificially sweetened beverages, which have their own downsides), it is also pathetically ineffective in curbing waistlines, which is its alleged purpose. A pair of recent articles show this clearly, each from their own perspectives, although each leaves out a portion of the picture.

Reason Magazine’s Jacob Sullum, in “Pop Out,” notes that this latest onslaught on public preferences is driven by a Clinton, only this time it’s the retired President himself. Apparently, he couldn’t start a homebuilding program or something else constructive, so he got involved with an American Heart Association effort to press top soft drink manufacturers into “changing the mix of beverages sold in schools,” in what Billy Bob calls “a bold step forward in the struggle to help 35 million young people lead healthier lives.”

As usual, Clinton ignores any effort to provide a carrot to CONVINCE people to eat or drink more healthfully, but goes straight to the stick, imposing external will on the available choices. However, as Sullum notes, “Although the agreement is supposed to help prevent obesity, it’s unlikely to have a measurable effect on students’ weight.” He notes that among the drinks approved under the new rules, fruit juices and milk (even the low-fat varieties) have as many calories as sugared soft drinks, if not more. He also notes that “diet soda” will still be on the menu in high schools, without commenting on the possible ills of those artificial sweeteners.

Ironically, says Sullum, according to John Sicher, editor and publisher of Beverage Digest, the arrangement will have “virtually no impact” on the companies’ bottom lines because “the sale of [sugar-sweetened] sodas in schools is a tiny, tiny part of their overall volume.” Sullum stops to ponder, given this little detail, “how much of an impact the changes will have on students’ waistlines.”

He concludes by speculating on the possible wider effects this could have: “There is little indication the drink selection in school vending machines will make students noticeably thinner. They will still be free to eat what they want and to buy the beverages of their choice off campus, which is where they consume most of their calories anyway. So will schools start searching students’ bags for contraband soda?” He predicts the soft drink industry is going to regret bowing to the pressure on this one.

Meanwhile, another health activist goes even further, decrying not only the absurdity of outlawing the sugar-based drinks, but challenging more strongly the things that will be allowed under this program. In a Health Sciences Institute e-Alert, Jenny Thompson points to several anomalies. Regarding the inclusion of milk in the approved list, she notes, “We’ll never convince the AHA or school administrators that the milk moustache is anything but wholesome, in spite of all the antibiotics and bovine growth hormones found in commercial milk.”

And as for the DIET sodas being left in the mixture, Thompson is righteously appalled, noting that even “a 1994 report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services” concluded, regarding the aspartame/Nutrasweet contained in most of those drinks, that it “could cause adverse reactions that include chest pains, asthma, migraine headaches, insomnia, tremors, vertigo and …WEIGHT GAIN.” With this last feature, she notes how counterproductive these beverages can be, and recommends plan WATER as the best substitute for thirst-quenching!

She also notes that the deals were made with the soft drink companies, and not the school districts. But the decisions on putting the vending machines into the schools in the first place come from … school administrators, who do so as a fundraising method for their schools, more than as a perk for the students. And meanwhile, as this movement clamps down on a small portion of the alleged problem, it leaves many other avenues for poor eating habits wide open. As Thompson says, “Kids can always bring high calorie, fully sugared soft drinks from home. And many high schools allow students to leave campus for lunch.” She wishes “good luck” to Clinton and the AHA when they “try to convince fast food restaurants to curb soft drink choices for kids.”

But more than all that, if the attempt is intended to cut back on consumption of unhealthful junk food, it is only attacking the surface. As Thompson notes, “When this new deal takes effect, high school kids will step up to the soft drink machines, choose milk, a sports drink or a diet soda, and then they’ll move over to the snack machines where plenty of candy and pastry treats are still available. If they’re snacking on Mars bars and Ring Dings, a diet soda isn’t going to do much to solve the obesity problem.”

Although the effort to proscribe behavior is at its root totalitarian, and should be opposed by libertarians and free marketeers at every turn, in this case, it is not even going to be effective, and even the social utilitarians should be made aware of this, so it can be stopped in its tracks. Jacob Sullum overlooks some of the additional problems with diet sodas, discarding them as “junk science.” Jenny Thompson addresses only the practical aspects of the issue, ignoring the authoritarian techniques being used to coerce behavior, albeit only applicable (so far) to government schools.

However, they both arrive at the same conclusion: the soda pop ban in schools is a very bad idea!