Potato chips, candy bars, ice cream and more. The first things you think of when you hear junk food. For the purposes of our debate, however, allow me to define junk food as food that has comparably low nutritional value, and a public school as a school that is funded by a local government. The debate should focus on the presence of junk food in public schools through forms of vending machines, lunches, etc. and not on the marketing aspect of it. The debate is not about limiting or placing restrictions on these foods, but an absolute banning of it. Junk foods have been on the debating table for ages now, and it is high time that we come to our senses and keep these foods in public schools.
First of all, schools should mirror the real world, and teach a student important skills like decision-making. According to NBC News, over half of the parents who sent their children to public schools felt that it was not preparing them for reality. It is inevitable for people to make choices regarding food and health in the future outside of school, and we need to provide a similar environment for kids in schools. To be clear, I am not particularly endorsing junk food, rather, I am supporting freedom of choice. Similar to how students make elective choices with parental influence, there is every reason for it to be the same for food selections. According to Gallup.com, which has conducting several surveys on this topic states, "Americans broadly support the proposed regulations that would not ban school junk food sales outright, but would somehow limit the number that fail to meet federal nutritional guidelines." It should be crystal clear now that having junk food in schools is a must to teach future generations the value of their decisions.
Moreover, healthy food is considerably more expensive than junk food. According to a 2014 study by Cambridge University, "Eating health costs more than three times as much as consuming unhealthy food, and the price gap in widening." And while some may believe that the majority can afford this, I will reassure you that this is not the case. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, "In 2013, the official poverty rate was 14.5%, or about 45 million Americans." And out of these 45 million Americans that went to school, all of them attended a public school in lieu of a private school, the National Center of Education observed. They also found out that over 70% of impoverished Americans attending a public school bought their lunches from the school. When we simply get rid of all junk food, we are directly making it harder for impoverished families to afford expensive and healthy meals. For a student coming from a struggling family, the cost will triple, making it not worth the precious money, and they are left with no other alternative but to not buy the food on a regular basis. To go further, The Food Effect stated that hunger will result in a significant decrease in academic performance. We cannot ignore these numbers and the direct effect they will have on many Americans.
Not only this, junk food profits help out many public schools, who are in need of all the money they can get, and banning junk food could have serious ramifications. For the Southern Berkshire Regional Schools, junk food is no longer sold. However, the School Committee is reconsidering this decision. For the district, junk food had produced an average profit margin of 70%, 50% more than the margin on healthy foods. According to Southern Berkshire Regional, the number of meals served per day has dropped almost 100 meals a day, after the ban. Their deficit has doubled and would require an increase in the lunch price, and a reduction in cafeteria staffing. For example, sodas make a lot of cash for public school. In 2005, according Pediatrics Digest, nearly half of all public elementary schools and about 80 percent of public middle and high schools operated under pouring rights contracts, which meant they had an exclusive contract with a soda company. A Rockford, Illinois describes their contract with Coca-Cola: "Under the existing 10-year contract, Coca-Cola has paid the district $4 million upfront and an additional $350,000 a year to sell its beverages in schools. The annual payments have funded field trips, gym uniforms, SMART Boards and other frills that individual school budgets may not otherwise have afforded." These sales have allowed schools to refine their programs, which would have been impossible without junk food.
In conclusion, it has become a must to keep junk food in public schools. Countless studies and polls have proven that keeping food selections varied teaches future generations important decision-making skills which they will need for the real world. Additionally, many Americans cannot afford an expensive and healthy lifestyle, and in order to get any food at all, they resort to junk food. Lastly, junk food sales can actually help schools in need of the extra cash. From the above evidence, it is obvious that the incontrovertible arguments for junk food will outweigh any from the opposition. It's very simple: A lack of junk food in schools lacks validity.
First of all, schools should mirror the real world, and teach a student important skills like decision-making. According to NBC News, over half of the parents who sent their children to public schools felt that it was not preparing them for reality. It is inevitable for people to make choices regarding food and health in the future outside of school, and we need to provide a similar environment for kids in schools. To be clear, I am not particularly endorsing junk food, rather, I am supporting freedom of choice. Similar to how students make elective choices with parental influence, there is every reason for it to be the same for food selections. According to Gallup.com, which has conducting several surveys on this topic states, "Americans broadly support the proposed regulations that would not ban school junk food sales outright, but would somehow limit the number that fail to meet federal nutritional guidelines." It should be crystal clear now that having junk food in schools is a must to teach future generations the value of their decisions.
Moreover, healthy food is considerably more expensive than junk food. According to a 2014 study by Cambridge University, "Eating health costs more than three times as much as consuming unhealthy food, and the price gap in widening." And while some may believe that the majority can afford this, I will reassure you that this is not the case. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, "In 2013, the official poverty rate was 14.5%, or about 45 million Americans." And out of these 45 million Americans that went to school, all of them attended a public school in lieu of a private school, the National Center of Education observed. They also found out that over 70% of impoverished Americans attending a public school bought their lunches from the school. When we simply get rid of all junk food, we are directly making it harder for impoverished families to afford expensive and healthy meals. For a student coming from a struggling family, the cost will triple, making it not worth the precious money, and they are left with no other alternative but to not buy the food on a regular basis. To go further, The Food Effect stated that hunger will result in a significant decrease in academic performance. We cannot ignore these numbers and the direct effect they will have on many Americans.
Not only this, junk food profits help out many public schools, who are in need of all the money they can get, and banning junk food could have serious ramifications. For the Southern Berkshire Regional Schools, junk food is no longer sold. However, the School Committee is reconsidering this decision. For the district, junk food had produced an average profit margin of 70%, 50% more than the margin on healthy foods. According to Southern Berkshire Regional, the number of meals served per day has dropped almost 100 meals a day, after the ban. Their deficit has doubled and would require an increase in the lunch price, and a reduction in cafeteria staffing. For example, sodas make a lot of cash for public school. In 2005, according Pediatrics Digest, nearly half of all public elementary schools and about 80 percent of public middle and high schools operated under pouring rights contracts, which meant they had an exclusive contract with a soda company. A Rockford, Illinois describes their contract with Coca-Cola: "Under the existing 10-year contract, Coca-Cola has paid the district $4 million upfront and an additional $350,000 a year to sell its beverages in schools. The annual payments have funded field trips, gym uniforms, SMART Boards and other frills that individual school budgets may not otherwise have afforded." These sales have allowed schools to refine their programs, which would have been impossible without junk food.
In conclusion, it has become a must to keep junk food in public schools. Countless studies and polls have proven that keeping food selections varied teaches future generations important decision-making skills which they will need for the real world. Additionally, many Americans cannot afford an expensive and healthy lifestyle, and in order to get any food at all, they resort to junk food. Lastly, junk food sales can actually help schools in need of the extra cash. From the above evidence, it is obvious that the incontrovertible arguments for junk food will outweigh any from the opposition. It's very simple: A lack of junk food in schools lacks validity.
No comments:
Post a Comment