But It Does Mix Better With Vodka

Jacob Sullum | June 15, 2005

Yesterday Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed a bill that would have banned regular soda and "junk food" from vending machines in the state's public schools. Rell said the legislation would usurp the roles of parents and school boards in deciding what beverages and snacks should be available to students. Aside from the issue of local control, there is the question of whether this particular solution makes sense as a response to obesity, which is how the legislation was pitched. The authors were enlightened enough to allow diet soda, but they also would have permitted fruit juices that, while more nutritious than soft drinks sweetened with corn syrup or sugar, have the same number of calories. Whatever contribution school vending machines make to students' waistlines, replacing Coke with orange juice is not going to make anyone thinner.

Comments

fyodor|6.15.05 @ 5:27PM|#

replacing Coke with orange juice is not going to make anyone thinner.

I dunno...they'd probably drink less of it!! :-)

|6.15.05 @ 5:28PM|#

Hurrah! Gardetto's and a root beer for Governor Rell!

|6.15.05 @ 5:29PM|#

The fallacy that fruit juice is less "fattening" than soda pop is quite commonly held.

It seems to be a variant of the "all-natural = healthy" fallacy.

I often find myself asking "What do you think the 'fruct' in 'high-fructose corn syrup' means?" or pointing out that "Wild almonds containing arsenic are all-natural, but would you eat one?"

|6.15.05 @ 5:37PM|#

replacing Coke with orange juice is not going to make anyone thinner

Perhaps not, but in terms of nutrition, Coke gets its little can kicked...

Coke's nutritional content: http://www.calorieking.com/foods/food.php?category_id=24457&brand_id=224&food_id=78094&partner=

OJ's nutritional content:
http://www.calorieking.com/foods/food.php?category_id=26786&brand_id=1&food_id=69469&partner=

Now I'm sure Coke leads in many important categories, such as "number of brown teeth," and "likelihood to contribute to adult-onset diabetes," but these are never printed on the side of the can for some strange reason...

|6.15.05 @ 5:52PM|#

>> I often find myself asking "What do you think
>> the 'fruct' in 'high-fructose corn syrup' means?"

High fructose corn syrup has a very high Glycemic Index compared to pure fructose (not surprising since it typically contains 42% glucose -- http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/hfcs.html). If you believe the research linking high-GI food consumption with insulin problems and adult onset diabetes, this is reason enough to prefer real fruit juices.

|6.15.05 @ 6:10PM|#

These are public schools. Why should the state sell these products that contribute so much to youth obesity and diabetes. Kids can eat and drink all the junk food they want after 3PM. No reason for the school to encourage them. Rell is probaly shilling for the vending lobby.

Fruit juice is much healthier than coke.

|6.15.05 @ 6:25PM|#

IMHO, I think junk food vending machines shouldn't be in elementary school or junior high, but I figure they're okay for high school.

By then, eating habits are probably pretty well set anyway.

|6.15.05 @ 7:00PM|#

If you lived in Connecticut and had a local's-eye view of Governor Rell (who is a "she," by the way) you'd lean more toward the "she's in the pckets of the soda companies" theory. This is the same woman who opposed the law making the penalties for crack and powder cocaine equal (as opposed to letting possession of even a tiny bit of crack be far more severe than powder), saying that it would send the message that we're softening our stance on drugs.

|6.15.05 @ 7:21PM|#

Why should the state sell these products that contribute so much to youth obesity and diabetes.

Gee, I dunno. Why should the kids buy them?

Already, some of the sharper knives in the drawer have figured out that when their school vending machines are removed by the Food Police, they can make a killing selling bootleg candy bars and sodas to their fellow students.

Shifting the sales venue doesn't remove the market, friendofliberty.

|6.15.05 @ 7:28PM|#

So what, the kids can buy it at 7/11. That is not the point. Schools should serve as models of behavior and only prepare and sell healthy natural foods. They should be teaching kids about health and nutrition. They are schools, are they not. That is there purpose. For Rell to veto this is wrong and sends the message that she cares more for the campaign contributions from soda and candy vendors than the education the state of Connecticut is offering to its citizens.

|6.15.05 @ 7:29PM|#

"If you lived in Connecticut and had a local's-eye view of Governor Rell (who is a "she," by the way) you'd lean more toward the "she's in the pckets of the soda companies" theory."

True, but we're talking about the Connecticut GOP. At least she's not as wholly corrupt as Rowland was, and at least she isn't having a street ho procure children for sex, like the ex-mayor of Waterbury.

|6.15.05 @ 7:36PM|#

Schools should serve as models of behavior...

OMG. The Orwellians have landed.

|6.15.05 @ 7:37PM|#

They are schools, are they not. [sic] That is there purpose. [sic]

I'm speechless.

|6.15.05 @ 7:39PM|#

[Schools] should be teaching kids about health and nutrition.

I vote (get it?) we outlaw parents. That'll pave the way.

|6.15.05 @ 8:03PM|#

I oppose baseless assumptions and lunatic statism. Good luck with my cause.

|6.15.05 @ 8:04PM|#

They should be teaching kids about health and nutrition. They are schools, are they not. That is there purpose.

Or, they could be teaching kids about spelling, homophones, and punctuation.

|6.15.05 @ 8:17PM|#

Or, they could be teaching kids about free enterprise in a nation of sovereign citizens who controlled their government responsibly and constitutionally because they feared it.

No, wait; that'd be impossible.

|6.15.05 @ 8:18PM|#

Supersize Me had some very good points about schools and nutrition and why it is so important to teach.

The right wing libertarianism here is a bit over the top though. A libertarian viewpoint does not need to be so extreme and oppositional. We are talking about politics, "the art of the possible". Reason should have more left-libertarian view points.

|6.15.05 @ 8:30PM|#

Personally I am for schools getting rid of the junk food and sodas (OJ does in fact have vitamins, whereas Coke does not). But the issue here is whether a state ought to mandate that. Well: the state already mandates what local schools can teach, right? I mean, I assume Connecticut does, every other state does. If the governor is vetoing this law but is happy with state-mandated curriculum, then it seems to me his decision (as Jennifer said) can't really have much to do with a passion for local control or diversity or freedom. I mean, if the state can tell my kids what to think and believe, well, why not refuse to sell them Pepsi? Seems like small potato chips at that point. So yeah, sure, in principle local control is better and so on, I just can't get excited about this issue.

I guess that's a lot of words though for an issue I can't get excited about. Huh.

|6.15.05 @ 8:47PM|#

Jon H-
Yes, Rell is definitely among the best of the Connecticut politicians. But the standards are so pathetically low.

|6.15.05 @ 9:48PM|#

The right wing libertarianism here is a bit over the top though. A libertarian viewpoint does not need to be so extreme and oppositional. We are talking about politics, "the art of the possible".

Good point. Forget about freeing the slaves; let's just shorten their workweek to 60 hours. :)

|6.15.05 @ 11:24PM|#

What we see here is a politician lining her pockets with dirty money from companies like Coca Cola, while smaller makers of much healthier drinks (such as Minute Maid) whither away.

|6.16.05 @ 3:07AM|#

What we see here is a politician lining her pockets with dirty money from companies like Coca Cola, while smaller makers of much healthier drinks (such as Minute Maid) whither away.

You're pulling our legs, right?

|6.16.05 @ 3:09AM|#

The right wing libertarianism here is a bit over the top though. A libertarian viewpoint does not need to be so extreme and oppositional. We are talking about politics, "the art of the possible". Reason should have more left-libertarian view points.

I prefer Thoreau's brand of "left-libertarianism" in that it's, you know, actually distinguishable from statism.

|6.16.05 @ 4:37AM|#

Eric--that's awesome. Made me burst out laughing. I never would have caught that.

|6.16.05 @ 8:53AM|#

I'm surprised that Coke or Pepsi hasn't started adding vitamins to it's products so they can defuse some the "unhealthy" argument.

They add all sorts of shit to cereal that's coated in sugar to make it look good for you, why not a line of Coke with 100% of your Vitamin C, etc?

|6.16.05 @ 9:02AM|#

The purpose of schools is to confine people and to socially condition them, like prisons. This imposes the view that "society" is the master of the individual.

Ergo, this issue isn't inconsistent. Let those fat little fuckers drink juice.

R C Dean|6.16.05 @ 9:49AM|#

Schools should serve as models of behavior.

No, schools should teach academic subjects (you know, reading, writing, that kind of thing), and should concern themselves with behavior only insofar as such behavior is inconsistent with learning said academic subjects.

One shudders to imagine a society where our current state schools actually were the primary models of behavior. One imagines . . . France.

|6.16.05 @ 11:14AM|#

No, schools should teach academic subjects (you know, reading, writing, that kind of thing), and should concern themselves with behavior only insofar as such behavior is inconsistent with learning said academic subjects.

Yes, as any libertarian will tell you, teaching behavior is the job of corporations!

|6.16.05 @ 11:34AM|#

lets let TV commercials teach nutrition. McDonalds and Pepsi are happy to teach our children nutrition. That is every libertarians dream, letting corporations run the schools. Right wing libertarianism leads to corporations running society (i.e. fascism). Most individuals will have no real power or autonomy (except theoretical freedom) only the very wealthy will.

|6.16.05 @ 11:39AM|#

Schools should be allowed to bar the sales of anything they want withing their walls. If kids want to drink sodas or eat candy bars or junk food, they can procure them on their own, or the parents can provide them for their children. The school does not have a responsibility to provide access or to be a sort of middle man.

By supplying these types of foods the schools are endorsing them. In this country there is a nutritional awareness problem and a lack of good models of proper nutrition. There is nothing offensive about a state legislature endorsing healthier or more nutritious foods and publically rejecting sodas and junk foods at the public schools. They arent banning the consumption, and people can get them on their own or the parents can provide them, but the state believes that it should be making an effort to promote foods with real nutritional value and trying denounce these foods that provide little to no nutritional value. Its very reasonable legislation, and it enjoyed majority support in the state legislature. The only thing Rell should be commended for is for showing how much campaign contributions matter more than the well being of the children.

|6.16.05 @ 12:26PM|#

Yeah, why do schools sell or give away food anyway? Are some people too lazy to pack a lunch?

|6.16.05 @ 12:35PM|#

QUOTE: "High fructose corn syrup has a very high Glycemic Index compared to pure fructose (not surprising since it typically contains 42% glucose -- http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/hfcs.html). If you believe the research linking high-GI food consumption with insulin problems and adult onset diabetes, this is reason enough to prefer real fruit juices."

Orange juice has almost double the sucrose as fructose. Per 100 grams, oranges contain 2.7 grams glucose, 2.2 grams fructose, and 3.7 grams sucrose. This is easy to g00gle, people.

|6.16.05 @ 1:38PM|#

"That is every libertarians dream, letting corporations run the schools."

Dude, I can't tell if you're being ironic or not. In case of the latter..

Libertarians distrust the collective, whether it's government OR the corporate. Why do you think libs are against corporate welfare? Why do you think libs are very nervous when the corporations collude with the government?

Imagine a Gibson-like world where it's corporations, not the government, that forces social conditioning on kids. Do you seriously think libertarians would find that peachy?

|6.16.05 @ 2:51PM|#

Libertarians should believe what you do about distrusting the collective, but from many comments here and in other threads, there are libertarian defenders of any corporate action including firing employees who smoke at home, drug testing, discrimination and many others because the government is not involved. they tell people if you don't like it quit or something idiotic and unrealistic like that. They believe you need to sell every freedom you have to your employer and should be required to do anything the employer asks including sexual acts if you want to have a job.

Libertarianism should be about freedom for individuals not corporations. Corporations are legal entities created by the government and therefore should be subject to regulation. Many here oppose any regulation of corporations as do most of the right wing libertarians like Cato.

|6.16.05 @ 3:15PM|#

FoL:

I don't believe that the government should be regulating corporations unless there are threats to individual life, liberty, and/or property. That keeps things pretty tight.

Do you agree to this limitation, or do you think the government should be cracking down because companies aren't hiring enough left-handed Eskimos?

|6.16.05 @ 3:23PM|#

Schools should serve as models of behavior

Corporations are legal entities created by the government and therefore should be subject to regulation

Right wing libertarianism leads to corporations running society (i.e. fascism)

Where do you come up with this stuff. I can't remember when being a friend of liberty ever involved such pointless subjectivity.

Stating the obvious: Liberty is found essentially in de-powering centrist government. The private sector responds to economic supply and demand. Therefore your assertions are exactly opposite of both constitutional principle and practical reality.

Since statist schooling, at best, involves a monopoly, and at worst, involves a monopoly setting social values in potential violation of the church/state separation clause, public schools should never set values. In fact, they should not exist...provided fascism and what-not are what we mean to avoid.

Since corporations are indeed legal entities, they should pay tax (a novel idea) thus removing the now-subservient, perpetually-endangered private free citizen to be, well, private and free again. That corps are legal entities gives government no more right to regulate them than it has to regulate you and I.

"Right wing liberarianism" should lead to the perfection of both these principles. How that implies fascism is simply beyond me. Even if that were a valid observation, proving that government has any right whatsoever fragmenting and regulating the private sector while growing itself until it literally writes its own laws strikes me not only as technically backwards, but pratically impossible.