Partnerships between schools and soft-drink distributors are not necessarily bad. Rather than increasing taxes on local homeowners, schools have turned to businesses to encourage direct contributions to education in their communities. Schools receive millions of dollars a year from soft-drink companies alone, and 92 percent of school principals surveyed think it's a good deal for their schools. More often than not, the premium paid by a soft-drink distributor for the right to sell sodas, juice, teas, bottled water and sport drinks at a school goes directly into sports and physical education activities for its students. This comes at a time when parents and health experts complain that there are not enough physical activities for children in schools.
Physical activity is critical.
Teens who drink soft drinks aren't at greater risk of obesity, but teens who don't exercise are marked for weight and health problems. If the senators from Vermont were truly interested in children's health, they would help schools educate kids about the importance of physical fitness and a healthy diet, which undoubtedly can accommodate the occasional consumption of liquids other than milk. Parents should be skeptical of any attempt by dairy state senators to have government dictate their children's diet. And if you don't want your legislators forcing their big-money constituents' financial interests on you, tell them not to. Nancy M. Pfotenhauer is president of the Independent Women's Forum, a nonpartisan public policy organization.