The "Junk Food" Dilemma

Senator Tom Harkin, the keynote speaker at last month’s FRN conference, has long been an advocate for public education, particularly in his support for "full-funding" of IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act). So it was not a surprise that the delegates at the convention received him enthusiastically.

But the room got quiet when he began to talk about federal nutrition standards for all food sold in school – including vending machines, which is a source of income for many school districts.

A similar dynamic occurred several years ago when former President Bill Clinton addressed the National School Board Association’s annual conference. Instead of providing the delegates with the “give-the-administration-hell” speech they expected, he spent most of his time talking about childhood obesity, and what role school boards might have in addressing the issue. He received polite applause.

Part of Harkin’s proposal is a significant expansion of a program he initiated some years ago, which gives school children exposure to locally-grown and creatively-prepared fresh fruit and vegetables. State College is one of a relative handful of schools nationwide that has had an opportunity to participate – to rave reviews, particularly from the students.

The principle behind school board resistance to federal nutrition standards – which Harkin acknowledged – is “local control”. In short, local boards don’t like being told what to do by the federal government.

It should be noted, as Harkin did, that this principle has merit. A top-down, one-size-fits-all approach (NCLB, for example) often results in bad policy because it ignores the experience and insight of the people who are the closest to the issue, as well as the fact that every school is different. Local school boards are more likely to understand and are in better position to respond to the concerns of the community.

But I think it is possible to take even a good principle too far. To my knowledge, “local control” is not carved in stone, and shouldn’t be. The deeper principal: what is in the best interest of our students?

It could be argued that schools should be a safe haven from exposure to “junk”, hi-fat, hi-sugar foods. It is certainly true that the quality of food that children eat has an effect on their ability to learn. So perhaps federal legislation is needed to remove from school boards the temptation to balance their food service budgets with the sale of potato chips.

I think it’s at least worth a discussion, which is why I was one of the few who applauded.