Billzebubba has done it again -- forgotten that he is no longer president, and stuck his nose in where, quite frankly, it does not belong. The deal negotiated by Bill Clinton with "Big Soda" will remove most soft drinks from our nation's schools as a health risk.

Yesterday, the beverage industry announced that it will voluntarily remove the high-calorie sodas from all schools, under an agreement with anti-obesity groups led by former president Bill Clinton.

The pact will probably bolster efforts in Washington area school systems -- many of which have been on the forefront of policing what students are eating and drinking. The District and Fairfax and Montgomery counties, among others, ban the sale of soft drinks during the school day.

Such efforts are cutting into the revenues that schools receive from vending machines, principals say, and the national agreement will doubtless accelerate that trend.

"The money is important, but not as important as kids' health," said Sean Bulson, principal at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School.

The national pact restricts the sale of drinks in elementary schools to water, milk and lower-calorie juices in containers no larger than eight ounces. In middle schools, those drinks can be 10 ounces.

In high schools, the drink size will be limited to 12 ounces. No sugary sodas will be sold, and half the drinks offered will be water or low-calorie beverages, such as diet soda. Sport drinks will be allowed if they have fewer than 100 calories.

"I think it's a great step in the right direction," said Robin Ziegler, chief of school and community nutrition programs for the Maryland State Department of Education.

Frankly, I think that soft drink manufacturers should have spuned any effort to change the availability of their products in schools. Let the schools decide what they wish to stock -- or allow the separate states to do so. The trend of private groups to set public policy in this manner is troubling, and anti-democratic. After all, what real choice did the soft drink manufacturers have -- they were up against a group led by a former president, married to a sitting US Senator who is the likely next Democrat nominee for president. Would legislation be far behind had they not agreed to voluntary curbs, regardless of the actual feelings of the American peole no the matter?

This deal also raises an interesting question. If soda ihas such deleterious effects upon the health of our nation's children, why are we limiting this effort to schools? Are soft drinks outside of schools somehow less harmful? Why are we not banning young people from purchasing soda completely? Why not make supplying such sugar-laced beverages to those below the age of 18 a crime, just as we do the sale of alochol and cigarettes? Perhaps this neo-prohibitionist -- dare I say neo-puritanical --movement will consider making a similar effort to wipe out soda vending machines (I'm old enough to remember both beer and cigarettes available from machines in public places).

That isn't to say that I think the removal of soft drinks from schools is a bad thing. I'm concerned about the process -- and the next step.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.