What our children need is a common-sense approach that calls for more physical activity and better nutrition education, not food police. Overview of the Negative Implications of Public School Nutrition Policies That Restrict Student Food Choices

From Texas to Connecticut, state legislators are working on education initiatives to better our public schools and to fund them. As they debate these critical issues, their attention must also focus on new and proposed policies that will rob public schools of desperately needed funds.

In many states, legislators are unaware of existing policies that address what children eat and drink at school. Take, for example, the nutrition guidelines recently announced by the Texas Department of Agriculture. Effective August 1, 2004, the revised Texas Public School Nutrition Policy will significantly restrict the foods available on school grounds and in the cafeterias, with potentially drastic financial consequences for Texas public schools.

Simply put, the nutrition policy adopted by Texas, and being closely watched by other states, imposes additional financial burdens on already cash-strapped public schools. Below is an overview of the negative implications of the Texas public school nutrition policy. Legislators, both within and outside of Texas, should carefully review and consider these implications as they seek to find ways to fulfill their state’s obligation to fund public education. A nutrition policy like the one adopted in Texas will hurt the financial bottom line of far too many schools, ultimately hurting the very students it is intended to help and will only add to forced deficits and spell further disaster for public school financing.

The new guidelines can be viewed by clicking here. If the food police have their way, gone are the days of pizza parties and birthday cakes in Texas classrooms — that is unless school official specifically approve the event as one of just three annual events per school year allowed under the new rules. Festive sprinkles, candy hearts and jelly beans can no longer garnish cupcakes or cookies, assuming those latter sweet treats can even be offered at all with stringent restrictions on foods containing refined or added sugar and trans fat. "Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value," which include soda water, water ices (any "…sicles"), chewing gum and most candies, are outlawed or subject to time-and-place restrictions.

While far too many foods are banned under the policy, even more are severely restricted by both serving size and how often they may be offered. For example, at elementary schools, French fries may not exceed a 3 ounce serving, may not be offered more than once per week, and students may only purchase one serving at a time. In fact, beginning in the 2005-06 school year, frying as a cooking method must be eliminated altogether.

No food is safe from being targeted under the policy. Only skim, 1 percent and 2 percent milk may be served, and flavored milk is allowed only if it contains no more than 30 grams total sugar per 8 ounce serving. If fresh fruits are not available, frozen or canned may be offered, but only if packed in natural juice, water or light syrup. Schools may not serve items that contain more than 28 grams of fat per serving more than twice a week, reducing it to 23 grams per serving by the 2006-07 school year.

No state should dictate to local school districts their food service policies. Local school districts must be empowered with the authority to decide these issues for themselves, in the best interests of their students and their financial situation.

The Center for Individual Freedom is a non-profit, non-partisan constitutional advocacy group that works to protect and defend individual freedom and individual rights in the legal, legislative and educational arenas. As a result, the Center is particularly concerned with the education our children receive in classrooms across the country and the increasing threat of government policies on local school districts.

There is no simple solution to childhood obesity, certainly not one that is universally and unilaterally imposed. What our children need is a common-sense approach that calls for more physical activity and better nutrition education, not food police.

Costly Budgetary Considerations of the Texas Policy

Legal Consequences of the Texas Nutrition Policy

Nutrition Policy Usurps the Power of Local School Districts and Parents

Nutrition Policy is Arbitrary and Sends the Wrong Message to Children

April 29, 2004
[About CFIF]  [Freedom Line]  [Legal Issues]  [Legislative Issues]  [We The People]  [Donate]  [Home]  [Search]  [Site Map]
© 2000 Center For Individual Freedom, All Rights Reserved. CFIF Privacy Statement
Designed by Wordmarque Design Associates
News About The Supreme Court Conservative News Legislative News Congressional News Agricultural News Campaign Finance Reform News Judicial Confirmation News Energy News Technology News Internet Taxation News Immigration News Conservative Newsletter Legal Reform News Humorous Legal News News About Senator Kennedy News About The War In Iraq Tribute to President Ronald Wilson Reagan