Junk Food Should Be Banned From Elementary, Middle, and High Schools

I'd like to s tart by thanking my opponent for setting out a very reasonable, well thought out case in favor of the resolution, and for providing the information I requested. I view what he has provided as sufficient, and will therefore function on that basis. As this round is meant solely to present my arguments and not to rebut my opponent's case, I will take the time to go through four key issues that I feel warrant a Con vote. They break down to the following issues: 1) Choices is good and necessary to achieve long-term goals 2) Targeting schools in this manner is an ineffective and, in fact, detrimental strategy 3) Restriction is sufficient and more effective On a basic level, such a ban defies the concept of education. The large portion of our education system is ensuring that children are taught what is a good choice. Making the kind of across-the-board junk food ban as has been suggested here by Pro doesn't teach them anything, it simply removes a portion of their options. In essence, they're not implementing a healthy lifestyle, they're simply taking the only option offered on school grounds. That means that they're likely to internalize little to nothing from this. Schools are supposed to be imprinting societal values on these kids, but this is essentially meaningless in that regard. They take no lessons into their home life at all, and the behavioral changes that are so essential to long-term health simply don't result from altering available choices. In fact, no single approach appears to be effective in changing the way people eat.[1] Students spend more of their lives outside of school, where their diets aren't as tailored and is significantly more limited. Even within school, they are likely not to be affected, as they can always bring food of their own volition, and often do.[2] As such, there should be a focus on making the right choice instead of forcing the right choice, though I'll get into the impacts of that force shortly. What's more, this masks the most central threats to student health. This sort of ban is sure to shove large costs onto a number of schools (if only just for tossing out current food sources and having to acquire the "healthier" options, which are also more expensive.[3] I'll spend some more time warranting the increased costs later, but they are certain to make the administration question where it's spending its money. That money has to come from somewhere. My argument is that it's likely to come from health courses and P.E., as they will feel that their renewed focus on health through the ban will be sufficient. The motivation to improve performance on standardized tests would also create incentive to place the costs in these camps.[4] That's a big mistake. The importance of health education in preventing risky behaviors and disease is well-established [5], as is that of physical education in both health and education [6]. Not only are they not learning anything from this ban, but any lessons they are garnering are wrong. Healthy food is about a balance of intake, garnering various resources from different food groups. Even the CDC says that we should eat comfort foods less often and in smaller amounts, but doesn't stipulate that we should not eat them at all.[7] I'll get into this more as I establish my case, but for now, the stance that healthy eating cannot, or even should not, include these foods just goes too far. And speaking on the definitions provided, when we're discussing what is "excessive," "a plethora," "without a healthy balance of nutrition necessities," that's creates some problems, and Pro walks a very thin line here between denying a number of cheap, easily accessible sources of important vitamins and minerals (causing harms regarding the availability of those resources), and allowing much of the very same junk food he derides, thereby mitigating his own case. On a deeper level, the process of forcing a decision upon these children is viewed as an assertion of authority on the part of their teachers and school administration, and this desire for rebellion is often defined by rejecting a piece of their identity that they have no control over. It's against being treated as a child, without any form of control over their lives. It's a measure of creating one's identity. The stronger the form of control, the stronger the impetus for the child to act out.[8] As a ban constitutes the strongest possible form of control, functioning as complete exclusion, it is likeliest to create this desire to rebel. How that rebellion plays out is uncertain, but generally, these students are likelier to rebel against authority in any given instance. I'd just like to note that I'm not using this argument against all measures of authority. I recognize that school is full of authority figures, and that their actions require holding some authority over the students. However, I feel that this authority needs to be limited, and that bans and other such excessive actions should only be implemented in cases of necessity. Going back to the cost structure, I think it's important to look at the broader implications of such a decision. As Pro specified, this is going to happen on a federal level. That's a problem. The American education system is designed to give local communities control over their schools through their school boards. While I can argue that this removes democratic choice, that is a relatively small loss compared to the impact of that reduced investment. Parents may rebel against it and try to upend the structure of the administration, but they aren't likely to be effective against a national system. The more likely result is that they're going to view their input as unimportant and reduce their contribution to their schools. That means far less involvement on their parts, and far less willingness to press their kids into providing assistance. These schools are going to lack for parents on the PTA, they're going to get less support in any sales or events meant to raise money or increase support. That means further harms to their bottom line. These are just secondary problems. How about a primary one? Schools have often turned to soda and snack vending machines to increase their discretionary funds.[4] In order to get them, they have to be making some money. Whether Pro is getting rid of these directly or dramatically reducing their sales by this change in policy, the number of contracts made with food and beverage companies are likely to decrease. Again, demonstrably less money for the school. However, as I agree with Pro that obesity is an issue worthy of tackling, I would also like to present my own case, rather than simply defend the status quo. I believe that restriction in terms of how much junk food is available to each student is sufficient to reduce obesity as a result of school foods. As such, these would still be present in school cafeterias, but at a lower level, and access to them would be significantly reduced. This would be especially true of subsidized meals, which would only allow the bare minimum access to these items in the cafeteria. Thus, those with the highest incidence of obesity would be addressed most heavily, and every student would be required to have healthier lunches from the cafeteria. The foods affected would be along similar lines to those presented by Pro, with those that represent fewer food groups being restricted most. It is entirely reasonable to reduce the amount they can eat at school instead of completely removing these foods as an option. There is no massive food waste that results from this. Local communities can still modulate the amount made available to students who can pay, and there would be some ability to contest the foods available on a local level. It doesn't present with any major cost concerns, nor does it mask the issue, ensuring that health classes and P.E. continue to get funding. That's not to mention that providing some of these still allows a measure of choice on the part of the children, which keeps them active participants in their own nutritional health. With that, I leave it to my opponent to rebut my arguments and my case, and to conclude his. 1. "No Single Approach Will Solve America's Obesity Epidemic." Christian Nordqvist. Medical News Today. Web. June 14, 2011. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...;. 2. "A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of School." Gardiner Harris. New York Times. Web. August 2, 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com...;. 3. "New study confirms that eating healthy does indeed cost more." Kim Krisberg. The Pump Handle. ScienceBlogs. Web. Dec 13, 2013. <http://scienceblogs.com...;. 4. "Reading, Writing and Raisinets: Are School Finances Contributing to Children"s Obesity?" Patricia M. Anderson. National Bureau of Economic Research. Web. March 2005. <http://www.nber.org...;. 5. "Why Health Education Is Important." New Hampshire Department of Education. NH.gov. Web. 2012 ,http://www.education.nh.gov...;. 6. "The Importance of Physical Education." Charlotte Kelso. Virginia Education Association. Web. <http://www.veanea.org...;. 7. "Healthy Eating for a Healthy Weight." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. USA.gov. Web. Dec 6, 2013. <http://www.cdc.gov...;. 8. "Rebel with a Cause: Rebellion in Adolescence." Carl E. Pickhardt. Psychology Today. Sussex Directories, Inc. Web. December 6, 2009. <http://www.psychologytoday.com...;.