Will the Philadelphia School District Ban on Soda Sales improve Students' Health?
An Analysis of the Controversy
©2004 William Piel

RETURN

edited 1/24/09

Overview

The School Reform Commission for the Philadelphia School District recently approved a ban on the sale of all sodas (carbonated) and fruit drinks of less than 100% fruit juices beginning on July 1, 2004 in schools for K-12 grades. The ban also includes any beverages using artificial sweeteners. The reasons given in the Press Releases suggest it was to provide the children with more nutritional and healthier beverage choices and that it was consistent with the American Academy of Pediatrics to reduce the risk of obesity. (See Appendix) The debate on this issue was started by District CEO Paul Vallas nearly a year ago when a new beverage vendor contract was being considered. As little as three years ago, the school district was considering signing a 10 year $43 million vendor contract with the local Coca-Cola bottling company.[1]

Even though the main claim for the ban appears to based on child obesity risks as related to sugar containing beverages, the ban is limited to all carbonated beverages independent of whether they contain sugar calories or not. The ban even includes artificial sweeteners with no calories. The allowed or approved beverages include all grades of milk as well as chocolate favored which seem to have more calories (much of it from fat) than any of the sodas. The approved 100% fruit juices also seem to have more calories that the carbonated soda. Therefore, the intended goal of the ban is not clear from the list of approved and banned beverages. The reasons given in the press release announcing the ban seems to be inferred and vague. Even the vote in the School Reform Commission was a very close 3 to 2 vote in favor of the ban.[2] Therefore, what outcomes are expected from ban are unclear and unspecified. Is it fewer obese children? Will the children learn better without the sodas or will they be less alert in class because they do not have any caffeinated beverages? Are the higher calories from the other allowed beverages healthier calories or fatty calories? Will the dollar value of the contracts from the beverage vendors decline, and therefore, bring in less revenue for the school budget? Is this setting a good example to the children as claimed or is it a bad message in that the school cannot teach the children to make healthy decisions on their own? If the purpose is to set an example, then there is another inconsistency in messages since the soda bans do not apply to vending machines located in the teachers' lounges.

National Background

Because of tightening school budgets during the late 1990's, signing exclusive contracts with either Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola became a popular means for school districts to fund part of the growing school budgets. To help quell concerns about such deals, the school districts would typically claim to use the extra money to fund athlete facilities or operations for more physical fitness. However, in the last few years there has been much publicity about the increasing risk of childhood obesity. Many health organizations have been claiming that a lack of physical activity as well as poor eating habits are the main cause.[3] As evidence of this growing concern for obesity, the news media in the recent past has reported on lawsuits being filed against companies such as McDonalds and Nabisco which claim that their client's obesity was due to the poor nutrition of the burgers or Oreo cookies being supplied in the marketplace.

The role of school's in promoting healthy diets achieved national attention following a three day national summit called "2002 Healthy Schools Summit" that was chaired by US Surgeon General David Satcher. Out of the summit came twelve action goals which emphasize the importance and need for education on healthy and nutritional diets. However, one of the twelve action goals did indirectly target controls on the sale of unhealthy beverages.

"Adopt policies ensuring that all foods and beverages available on school campuses and at school events contribute toward eating patterns that are consistent with Dietary Guidelines for Americans"[4]

This appeared to help initiate the recent national momentum to ban soda and candy from schools. In early 2003, the Los Angeles school system instituted a restriction on soda and candy sales for the elementary and middle schools but not the high schools. Later in the year, the school district for New York City instituted a control over all food services including soda and candy sales.[5]

There has also been a move to have states ban the sale of soda and candy in schools. At last count there were seventeen considering a ban and three states that recently instituted some restrictions such as Texas, California and Arkansas[6] as illustrated on the map below.

SOURCE: National Conference of State Legislatures reported in Education Week

Philadelphia Dispute

The debate on soda bans in Philadelphia began in the summer of 2003 with the City Council conducting a hearing on the issue in June. Citing concerns about students' poor nutrition and a growing obesity, District CEO Paul Vallas then came out with his own anti-soda position statement in July that kicked off a review in the School Reform Commission when the district was evaluating an exclusive beverage contract. Public hearings by the commission were conducted in August.[7] Then after developing a final policy that seems to ban all carbonated soda drinks no matter if sweetened with natural sugar or artificial sweeteners (0 calorie), the ban proposal was passed by a very close three to two vote by the School Reform Commission in January 2004.

The following statements and quotes from the Philadelphia Inquirer article covering the meeting seem best at expressing the arguments and beliefs that led to the close vote by the five-member Reform Commission that has oversight authority over the school district's policies.[8]

The Philadelphia School Reform Commission enacted one of the toughest school beverage policies in the nation yesterday by banning sodas, iced teas, and other sweetened drinks from all of its schools.

The commission has debated the policy since last summer after the issue surfaced when the district solicited bids for an exclusive beverage-vending contract

Sodas have been virtually nonexistent in Philadelphia elementary schools for years, but they have been available at many of the 40 high schools and some middle schools.

Pro -- Chief district officer (superintendent equivalent)

"This is about sending messages," said Paul Vallas, the district's chief executive officer, who pushed for the policy. "We have a responsibility to make sure what we're selling in school is of nutritional value."

Vallas said yesterday that the district again would solicit bids (beverage vendor) under new policy guidelines.

Pro -- Three of five commissioners

Commission Chairman James Nevels and member James Gallagher, both appointed by former Gov. Mark Schweiker, and member Sandra Dungee Glenn, a Mayor Street appointee, voted for the policy.

They said it would strengthen nutritional offerings, help with the childhood-obesity dilemma, and send a message to corporate America to look closer at products for youths.

But Dungee Glenn and Gallagher argued that the district has a responsibility to educate students on good nutrition and encourage good behavior.

"Although this does not prevent a child of any age from purchasing highly sugared drinks or soda once they leave school, I do think we have a responsibility as their caretakers during school hours to try and do what we believe is in their best interest," Dungee Glenn said.

Con -- Two of five commissioners

Voting in opposition were Daniel Whelan, a Schweiker appointee, and Martin Bednarek, a Street appointee, who said students should be able to choose. They also said that they doubted the ban would help with obesity and that the district instead should upgrade its physical-education program.

"A calorie's a calorie. It doesn't matter where you get them, from milk or fruit juice or sodas," Whelan said. "The policy we adopt today sends a strong message that we don't trust our high school students with a simple decision as to whether to consume a soda."

Bednarek asked whether the district would ban books from the library next. "We need to let our young people make choices," he said.

Con -- Beverage vendor for school district

Ronald Wilson, president of the Philadelphia-based Coca-Cola Bottling Co., said his company was still interested in working with the district but was disappointed in the decision.

"We think it's bad science and bad math," he said, adding that only 1 percent of the district's drink sales are sodas. He complained that proponents of the policy had unfairly made his company the "culprit" for childhood obesity when the lack of physical activity was to blame

Pro -- Advocacy group representing the local farmer marketers and similar natural food groups

But Duane Perry, executive director of the Food Trust, a nutrition advocacy group, praised the decision.

"It's great that the Philadelphia School District has enacted a policy that will result in children learning and modifying their behavior," he said.

Problems of Understanding

The most significant area in lack of understanding appears to be the actual goal or expected outcome, or essentially what is the purpose of the soda ban. The term of "childhood obesity" seems to be the main driver in the discussions. The Pennsylvania Dept of Health stated during the debates that a study showed that 18% of eight graders are over weight and that 17% are at risk at being over weight.[9] However, the District Division of Food Services makes reference that carbonated beverages only represent 13% of vending machine sales in the school, and that they are not sold in elementary schools at all.[10] Others refer to nutritional foods and beverages in their discussions. There are also terms like unhealthy food choices. To these people, it seems that high calorie beverages are acceptable as long as they also contain other natural nutrients such as vitamins, calcium or proteins. The discussions seem to be generally vague with no discussion on the actual role of soda sold in Philadelphia schools toward childhood obesity.

The issue of what may be the real problem is also somewhat debated. CEO Vallas says that the school must set an example with the ban. However, another Commissioner notes that the allowed beverages such as milk and 100% fruit juices actually have higher calories than regular sweetened soda and the zero-calorie diet soda. He also notes that a calorie is a calorie no matter how it is consumed. He questions whether the problem is really about teaching the children to make healthy or nutritional choices, and not about limiting their beverage choices. Others also point out that the schools need to promote physical activity, and that the money from the vending supply contracts are used to support athletic equipment for sports and other physical activities.[11]

On the other side, those who want the ban on soda sales use a number of sloganistic terms to negatively characterize the soda products such as "Liquid Candy", "Sugar filled drinks", "Non-nutritive drinks", and "empty calorie beverages". These terms appear to refer to both the regular sweetened sodas as well as the diet sodas.

Problems of Fact

One major question of fact is whether soda consumption is actually a key contributor to childhood obesity. Some reference a study associated with Harvard University that suggests that children soda consumption is a statistically significant contributor to childhood obesity, but that diet soda was not.[12] However, the NSDA (National Soft Drink Association) references other studies that find no statistical relationship to soda consumption, but link childhood obesity to lack of physical activity and the consumption of too many calories overall. ¹¹ More recently, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) released their own policy statement that comes out against the sale of soda in schools. Its policy paper uses many references to the calorie content of soda and its non-nutritional value, but it does not provide any study that links soda consumption to poor childhood health. The policy statement to reduce soda consumption is based mostly on their opinion that soda is contributing to childhood obesity and poor health.[13] In the debates, neither side seems to recognize the studies used by the other side.

In this debate, I find that there is no study that specifically links soda consumption at schools to child obesity, other health related problems or even school performance. There is also no discussion on whether consuming the other approved beverages will reduce childhood obesity or are nutritionally better. There is also no study to support that banning soda at schools will educate or improve the children's nutritional eating habits outside of school. Therefore, in all these debates, there does not appear to be any supporting facts that a soda ban will have any effect on childhood obesity directly or indirectly (by setting examples).

To better understand the debate myself, I found the calorie content of the various beverages that are part of the policy debate and listed the information in the following table.

	Calories per 8 oz Drink		Sugar In 8oz	Banned in Grades
Beverages	Total	From Fat	Grams	K-8	9-12
Bottled Water	0	0	0
Sodas (Coke, Pepsi & others)	100	0	26	Banned	Banned
Diet Sodas	0	0	0	Banned	Banned
Ice Tea lemon -Unsweetened	0	0	0
Milk Whole White	154	75	12
Milk 2% Fat White	122	43	12
Milk 1% Fat White	102	21	13
Milk no-Fat White	86	4	13
Chocolate Milk Whole	208	76	24
30% juice drink	130	0	30	Banned	Banned
100% Orange Juice	122	3	30
100% Apple Juice	117	2	27
Powerade	70	8	14	Banned	Selective
Source of calories & sugar: www.calorie-count.com

From this information, it appears that all the approved beverages (except for water and no-fat milk) will actually contain higher calories than soda, and unlike soda, a portion of these calories from the approved beverages will be in the form of fat and not sugar. Like diet soda, water is the only approved beverage that has no calories, but it also does not have any other nutritional value. From this information, there is no evidence to support that limiting the vending machine sales to the approved beverages in the ban policy will reduce childhood obesity or even educate the children on lower calorie consumption. Based on this limited information, someone might be able to make an argument that the soda ban will make childhood obesity worse by increasing both calorie consumption and fat consumption. Considering obesity risk, the best beverage for sale might be the diet soda. Besides reducing the calorie intake in school, it also might educate children into selecting diet drinks over regular sweetened drinks when outside of school.

Problems of Value

What is the true purpose of the school ban on soda sales? It appears that different parties have different beliefs which are not necessarily supported by the available evidence. There are some from health related interests who truly believe that this ban will directly reduce childhood obesity and modify their eating habits outside school as well. They see the benefits of this ban as very high even though the evidence does not appear to support this result. However, the soda industry is concerned that they are being singled out as a main cause (scapegoat) for increasing obesity in the nation which they believe is really the result of other poor eating and activity habits. From their perspective, it is similar to a lawyer suing McDonalds as the cause of a child's obesity since the parents feel they have no responsibility for instructing their child on good nutritional choices. Therefore, are soda sales in school being singled out as a symbol of poor nutrition that school administrators can easily demonize? The school administrators likely realize that they would probably receive much more backlash if they tried to ban the other higher calorie drinks such as milk and 100% fruit juices instead. Therefore, is CEO Vallas using this soda ban as a means to divert attention away from the school's role in nutrition education?

If the real cause of childhood obesity is a lack of physical activity and high total calorie consumption, then this soda ban might actually be causing more harm than good by creating the false impression for parents that the problem is being solved. This then raises the question of a lost opportunity cost or damage by allowing the actual cause to continue unabated. This concern was raised by the dissenting school commissioners in the school should be teaching the children to make proper nutritional choices and not by just limiting their beverage choices during school hours.

Therefore, from this reviewer's perspective, it not obvious whether this soda ban in schools will end up doing more harm instead of good as far as impacting the rising risk of obesity in children. From all the posturing and debate, it appears that the District CEO is using the ban to deflect attention away from the school management for responsibility in nutrition education and promoting physical activity. However, the slogans and half-truths used in this debate are giving the school administrators the cover that is needed to create this deception.

ENDNOTES

TO TOP

Appendix