Man vs. Machine
School vending machines are in the crosshairs of the obesity debate
By Jon W. Drummond, Special to R&I -- Restaurants & Institutions, November 1, 2003
The controversy over the place of vending machines in public schools has the pressure-packed power of a shaken can of soda. It could explode or slowly settle down.
As a volatile mix of impassioned critics of rising child obesity rates, outraged lawmakers and energetic lobbyists debates the state of school nutrition, the campus vending machines that dispense soft drinks and snacks often are cast as the morality play’s villains. Caught in the middle are cash-strapped school districts that need the revenue from vending contracts but also strongly support healthful nutrition guidelines.
The National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA), a vending trade group, is tracking 52 bills in 33 states this year alone, while the nation’s two largest public school districts, New York City and Los Angeles, have banned soda vending during school hours. Further, New York has banned snack vending and Los Angeles has an “obesity prevention motion” up for consideration.
The Texas Department of Agriculture in August imposed new statewide rules prohibiting elementary schools from providing soft drinks, hard candy or gum during the school day. At the state’s middle schools, students now cannot buy those items during breakfast or lunch hours in cafeterias or from vending machines. The department used its authority as administering agency for federal school lunch and breakfast programs, a responsibility granted it earlier this year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
“The state and nation are in the midst of an obesity epidemic that threatens the health of current and future generations,” Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs wrote in a letter to state superintendents and child-nutrition directors explaining the new rules. “Schools must assume a more active role in providing nutritious food and in limiting access to foods of minimal nutritional value to schoolchildren in their care.”
In one example of such action, students returning to Martin County (Fla.) High School this fall found new vending machines offering more healthful alternatives to candy and soft drinks such as yogurt, beef jerky, fruit and milk-based beverages. The county reportedly will test student acceptance through October before deciding on additional placements.
Questions of responsibility
Although definitions of obesity vary, the National Center for Health Statistics claims 15% of children and teens ages 6 to 19 are obese, nearly twice the percentage in 1980.
More than 93,000 schools and 27.9 million children participate in the USDA-funded ($6.7 billion in 2002) National School Lunch Program. Schools that receive federal support for their foodservice operations are required to meet national nutrition guidelines, but availability of vended food and drinks and competitive à la carte items is not restricted.
Elected officials feel obligated to protect the public health of young people, and railing against excess calories is hardly a dangerous political stance. “When children are at school we have a responsibility,” says Maryland state Sen. Paul Pinsky. “They are a captive audience.”
The vending industry, however, counters that it is getting too much of the blame for a problem that has many contributing factors, including most Americans’ sedentary lifestyles. A survey of NAMA members doing business in schools in the fall of 2002 found that less than one snack item and less than one candy bar were sold per student per week, says Tom McMahon, the organization’s chief counsel and a senior vice president. “It says to us that vending machines in schools are not a considerable factor in the rise in obesity.”
The organization “opposes government restrictions beyond what is in place now,” says McMahon. “What we support is more nutrition education and more physical education in our nation’s schools.”
Schools shield revenues
For Maryland’s Pinsky, resistance from the vending lobby was expected, but he was surprised by opposition from a less-likely group: high-school principals. In many school districts across the country, individual administrators are signing lucrative contracts with bottlers.
“High-school principals have become addicted to the extra revenue [vending provides] for band uniforms and school equipment,” he says.
Administrators at the 4,500-student Adlai E. Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Ill., signed a five-year pact with a soft-drink company that pays the school a minimum of $60,000 per year and an additional $110,000 a year based on a 15,000-case volume.
The money supports about 115 activities at the school “from the juggling club to the mountain-biking club to student government,” says Assistant Superintendent for Business Jim Hintz. “It keeps the members from having to conduct repeated candy and fruit sales so they can focus on club activities.”
The soda contract also supports athletic programs and is a way of underwriting activities without asking taxpayers for additional funds. According to Hintz, a large number of beverages are purchased after regular school hours, and students are drinking more than just soda. “Water is a huge seller,” he says.
In California, recent statewide efforts to ban soda and snacks have lagged, but the 748,000-student Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education passed a soda-vending ban a year ago. It takes effect in January 2004, by which time the district plans to have a central procurement system for alternative beverages rather than allowing each principal negotiate a deal with bottlers.
School Board member Marlene Canter, who proposed the ban, said health officials made compelling arguments about the rise of childhood obesity. “We didn’t need to be selling soda to our students,” she explains.
Although the Los Angeles ban doesn’t take effect for several months, two high schools in the district took part in a pilot effort last year to assess potential revenue loss. The average income for schools from soda contracts was about $39,000 annually per school.
“It’s still preliminary, but the revenue loss is not as significant as anticipated,” Canter says.
Foodservice contract-management providers generally stay out of the vending controversy, says Tom Callahan, vice president of marketing and product development for Sodexho USA School Services. “In 95% of the cases, Sodexho is not involved,” he says. “Negotiations are between schools and bottlers.”
In contracts where Gaithersburg, Md.-based Sodexho handles vending, Callahan sees little difficulty in meeting demands for alternate items. “More choices and subbing items in and out should not be a problem for a vendor,” he says. “It should make good business sense.”
He applauds the debate over healthier standards. “Overall it is a good thing that this has become a point for discussion,” Callahan says. “The legislation is going to help propel the industry rather than slow it down.”
Jon W. Drummond is a Chicago-based freelance writer.
No related content found.
VIEW ALL GALLERIES
