WP: Lawyers Ready Suit Over Soda: Linking Obesity to Sale in Schools

Lawyers Ready Suit Over Soda
Case Being Built Linking Obesity To Sale in Schools
By Caroline E. Mayer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 2, 2005; Page D02


....A coalition of lawyers who have actively and successfully sued tobacco companies says it is close to filing a class-action lawsuit against soft-drink makers for selling sugared sodas in schools. The lawyers, who have been trying to develop a case against the soft-drink makers for more than two years, say a lawsuit could be filed within the next few weeks, probably in Massachusetts, which has one of the nation's most plaintiff-friendly consumer-protection laws.

As news reports of the pending lawsuit proliferate, the beverage industry is shoring up its defenses. Yesterday, the American Beverage Association released a study that showed a 24 percent drop in purchases of full-calorie carbonated soft drinks at schools from 2002 to 2004. In 2004, the study showed, high-schoolers drank the equivalent of one 12-ounce can of such soda a week, while younger students drank less....

***

Leading the litigation effort is Richard A. Daynard, an associate dean at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, who is also president of the Tobacco Control Resource Center and chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project, both of which have provided legal support to attorneys suing tobacco companies. Daynard was involved in many of the state cases against the tobacco firms that led to the landmark $246 billion settlement in 1998.

Joining Daynard is Stephen A. Sheller, a Philadelphia lawyer who came up with the legal theory that tobacco firms deceived consumers into thinking their low-tar and -nicotine cigarettes were safer to smoke than regular cigarettes. That theory helped lead to a $10 billion consumer-fraud verdict against Philip Morris USA in an Illinois state court two years ago, which is under appeal.

Also involved in the prospective lawsuit is the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group that has aggressively pressed for more explicit food labels and less fat and sodium in all kinds of food. Earlier this year, the group called for federally mandated health warnings similar to those on cigarettes....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101467.html

give the hell up.

Who ARE these "lawyers," anyway?

Has anyone taken note of the fact that the tobacco companies who have had to cough up fines and/or damages in those lawsuits have taken all that money as legal deductions (costs of doing business) when calculating their corporate income taxes?

And that means - yes - we taxpayers have paid for all of it.

I officially give the hell up.

That money was deducted from their income, not their taxes owed. If their corporate tax rate is, say 15%, then we paid 15% of it.

Of raising taxes on cigarettes without subjecting any state lawmakers
to political risks they would have faced had they did the same directly.
Surely there is money to be made by certain entities if more people quit smoking.

And more red meat to the tort-reform crowd.

To LOCK UP a few more UNRULY "BLACK MEN"

for fun and profit. There must be a shortage of ambulances to chase this week.

it is a pervasive evil that must be stamped out before it destroys the children!
(sarcasm)


The whole thing has a refer madness quality about it.

Have you seen "Supersize Me"? Its a ok beginning place on the subject.

You say it has a reefer madness quality, well so did the lawsuits against big tobacco companies. everyone thought that it was silly. We knew that tobacco was bad for us, just like we know now that shitty food is bad for us. We also know that big tobacco companies pushed incredibly hard and paid billions of dollars to get children and young teens to start up smoking. Just like we know now that pepsi and all those snack food companies (including those snack food companies owned by tobacco companies) pay billions to get kids to buy their product. It was a conscious decision by those companies to put those vending machines in schools. They had to push for schools to allow that. and now some states are starting to allow only healthy foods to be allowed in vending machines (in schools)

My question is, is there a difference in the strategy used by big tobacco companies compared to those used by large snack food companies? considering many of them are owned by each other, all interwoven, I dont think so.

We have witnessed the harmful effects of tobacco on people, especially those who start at a young age. Snack foods can be and ARE just as deadly.

Now, Im not suggesting that snack foods be banned. What I am suggesting is that they should have the same restrictions as large tobacco companies, and for the same reasons. Tobacco companies are basically not allowed to market to children. Snack food companies should have similiar (although somewhat less restrictive)laws guiding them. Children should be able to buy snack foods, they shoulnd not be banned, but compnies should not be allowed to manipulate children into buying them, and they should not be allowed to sell them within schools, where kids are forced to go for 8 hours every weekday.

It was a propaganda piece. If you eat McDonalds 3X a day you will get fat. Who would have thought?

This lawsuit isn't about marketing to children, it's about extorting money from a legal business -- for the profit of a group of lawyers and state treasuries.

but companies should not be allowed to manipulate children into buying them

Last time I checked pepsi wasn't standing at the school doors forcing students to buy their product.

Kids are subjected to all kinds of influences. Parents, peers, etc. Advertising is not coercion. If anything we need to teach our children critical viewing skills.

should we allow joe camel back? (since that wasnt coersion, and therefore we should allow tobbacco companies to market cigarettes to eight year olds.)

because any of the beer and wine cooler ads I see on TV are just as seductive and just as legal, and, you know, again, it's up to parents to teach their kids about what is bullshit and what isn't.

I'm horrified at how quickly people of a progressive and independent bent are willing to relinquish their rights and responsibilities as adults, as parents, to Big Brother.

This is so basic, it's just lamentable.

will choose to drink that sugary crap when they know Mom isn't there to tell them it isn't good for them. If they were capable of making healthy choices, they would be off living in their own apartments.

Do you also think we should have video games available for the kids to choose to play when they want at school? How about some porn in the library?

This isn't about Big Brother. It's about protecting our young and impressionable children. THAT is what is basic here.

My kids never went for that "sugary crap," because they knew what it was. We taught them. That's the role of parents. To teach the kids and to give the kids the information and muscle to make the proper choices for themselves.

No, I don't think we should have video games for the kids to play at school, nor do I think there should be porn in the library for anyone.

It's all about Big Brother. My kids know what's good and what isn't because we did our jobs and made sure they understood how it all works. We aren't here to "protect" our young and impressionable children. We're here to expose them and to make sure the impressions that are made on them - because that's gonna happen no matter how many Nannies kvetch and wail about their "young and impressionable children" - are wholesome and in keeping with our (the parents') standards and beliefs.

Being a parent is hard work, and watching this scenario play out is a sad reminder that parents are all too willing to abdicate far too much of their role to institutions. Teaching your children well so that they have your trust, and their own confidence, is why we're parents.

but I have been teaching kids for a quarter century and the vast majority do NOT have parents like you.

And I would bet you a brazillion dollars that your kids made choices you wouldn't have approved of and that you will never know about:)

We have ONE soda machine in my school. It is for the teachers and it is in the teachers' lounge. And at least WEEKLY, some kid wants to go in there and buy a soda. Especially after school when many of the adults have gone home. Our after school care program has had to watch that door to keep the kids out of that room. (The only adult bathroom in the school is is there or they would lock the door.)

At least once a month, one of my students brings a can of soda to school in his/her backpack. The really dumb kids try to take it to lunch to drink.

They are kids. They make bad choices. They do stupid things. That's part of being a kid. And it isn't the least bit big brother to want to protect them.

That gives you no special insight into what goes on with kids, unless, of course, they're yours.

Our kids made mistakes. So did I. That's part of growing up. But, they always had the information.

That's the job. To make sure the information is available and understood by them.

Why is there a soda machine anywhere in a school? That's just asking for trouble, and adults (the teachers) should know better than that.

Sorry, but you haven't changed my mind.

because they are - well, adults. Why should teachers be treated differently than any other employees in any other business who have access to pop at work?

I don't drink the crap. If I was in charge, we would have a juice machine. But if they took the pop machines out, then I guess the pop addicts could bring their own and put it in their own little fridges. But that leads to a whole nuther discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5500691

I don't pretend to have any special insight. I just enjoy reading these posts where parents think they have all the answers. See, I know what happens when parents aren't watching. And I raised two kids. I RARELY bought soda for them. Never kept it at home. Only time they got it was the rare times we went out to eat. And guess what? They both drink it now - too much, IMO. My parents did the same thing - raised 4 kids and never let us drink any soda. And of the 4, I am the only one who never acquired the taste for it. I have two sisters who keep the diet pop makers in business.

My point is this stuff is addicting. And it is poison, IMO. Why in the world should a school make it available to kids? That's just nuts.

Make something forbidden, and you make it irresistible to kids.

Want to exacerbate the situation? Make sure the kids know that the adults (teachers) have that something, but they (the kids) can't.

That's just stupid.

There was always soda in our house when I was growing up, and it never much mattered either way, because it wasn't any big deal. I drank milk because I liked it.

Same with our kids, who had access to everything - and that meant books and movies that other parents might have found objectionable - because that's what we believed.

Today, our kids have soda in their homes, and their kids can take it or leave it.

That's my point.

I hear you on the forbidden temptations though.

But I think we as a society have a responsibility to protect our kids. Soda is not good for them. We shouldn't be promoting it to them at school. And for too many kids, that machine in their cafeteria would be too big of a temptation. Sure there are some who have listened to their parents and won't buy it. But face it, these machines are money makers or they wouldn't be trying to put them in schools.

I will argue on the point about teachers getting it. There are all kinds of things kids can't do that adults get to do - like drive. Kids are not miniature adults. And it is not right to treat them like they are.

We agree that soda machines shouldn't be in schools.

Yes, that's true - kids can't drive. They can't vote, either, or get mortgages.

That doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be treated with respect, trusted, and given the chance to make their own choices. And all of that starts at home, with the parents.

And junk food as well. If we funded schools properly they wouldn't need the income generated. I don't know if lawsuits are the way to go, but with the tabacco cases, a lot of information came out that was not public knowledge previously. I think that is the good thing about these lawsuits as well. I believe that these corporations are EVIL. This stuff is just bad for you and as long as they are able to advertise, kids will want it. These companies are causing a major drain pn public health resources and they should pay for it. I think a "fat tax" is probably a hgood idea. Like cigarettes are taxed at a higher rate, fast food and sodas need to be taxed at a higher rate to pay for the health care disasters they cause.

And for those kids (which I believe are in the vast majority in my distict), what can you do? Just let them make bad choices and shake your head at their poor parenting?

On the other hand, I would be the first to agree that schools are having parenting foisted on them far too often. But, we do operate in loco parentis, and as such, we should take some responsibility for what they eat during the school day.

We've run into problems in removing or restricting vending - not from law or the legislature - but from parents who want their kids to have chips and stuff at school. We even had one parent call the superintendent demanding that they serve more dessert at lunch! What do you do with that?

We've tried to balance things with a Wellness policy that sets a limit on the nutritional value something has to contain before it can be sold in school. We don't sell pop, but we do have juice, which can have a lot of sugar, too. We sell chips, but they're baked, so lower fat. We sell fruit smoothies. We sell granola-type bars - but they can have quite a bit of sugar too. Is this enough? Too much? I don't know.

although you know I believe you.

Parents demanding more desserts for their kids? WHO ARE THESE MUTANTS?

You know, child abuse comes in all sorts of guises. I swear.

I'm old, and I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I firmly believe that children should go the hell to school, learn, socialize, have lunch in the cafeteria, and go home to eat. The concept of "snacking" in schools just confounds me. As I think I posted earlier in this thread, when did our children become such fragile little creatures that they needed to be fed constantly?

This must be great news for the Type II Diabetes lobbying groups.

Juice - I would no more let my kids suck down those infernal juice boxes than I'd let them smoke a cigarette.

I don't know, either, donco, but you really do have me shaking my head, and, we do agree that the in loco parentis thing is really a raw deal for you teachers. I'm in charge of training my kids, teaching them about respect, consideration, compassion, ethics - not a schoolteacher.

That's why I'm allowed to give my kid a whack on the butt if that kid goes too far, and teachers are not. Because I'm the parent.

Well, donco, thanks again, and good luck. I don't know how you're ever gonna get out of your predicament if you've got moronic parents out there, but I wish you the best and thank you for taking the time.

who cannot BELIEVE the amounts of cash young children have on them--ten year olds, asking for change for a fifty!!

Wow, I can remember when a quarter was something!!!

The dirty little secret is that the schools get massive kickbacks from having the machines in there; and while it would be fine and dandy to get rid of them, that also means they get rid of the income generated by the machines that supplements the schools' budgets. There would not be any profit to be made to have video games in the library or anywhere, unless they were table top models that required quarters to operate (they'd probably be better suited to the cafeteria...!). And unless they turn the library into BLOCKBUSTER, same goes for video rentals....

I survived on shitty school lunches or the sandwich in the paper sack--no soda machines, no soda allowed, come to think of it....but then again, the schools were well maintained, teachers were plentiful, the water fountains worked, and we were kept pretty busy throughout the day. That was back in the dark ages...nowadays, there just isn't enough money, even in the "well-off" communities.

We've tried in Oregon to get this shit out of schools and replace it with healthy drinks now for several legislative sessions- and every time the junk food lobby spends big money and buys off Republican lawmakers (and a few Dems) to defeat it.

As it is, there's an epidemic of obesity, dramatically increased incidence of type II diabetes and even osteoporosis in kids and young adults- not to mention serious dental problems.

These corporations use all sorts of strong arm tactics and what amounts to bribes to pressure school districts to get their crap in- and the spend hundreds of millions on child psychologists to advertise their destructive products to children who don't have the cognitive skills to recognize that they're essentially being brainwashed. Of course- most of these right wing lawmakers they fund are the ones who cut money for the school districts in the first place- forcing them to go hat in hand to the junk food purveyors.

So, not only does the government end up paying for the costs of these kids health problems- but so does everyone else in the form of higher insurance premiums.

And whenever public health minded groups try to do something about it, they run into people who know NOTHING about the issue, but are always quick on the draw with nanny state memes.

Nice.

fruit juice is loaded with sugar, by the way - in any school?

Let kids go to school to learn, to socialize, to do what kids do, but why do we have to fuel them constantly, and now argue about what sort of fuel we're going to fill them with?

Eat at lunch. Eat after school. Eat at mealtimes.

The problem is that we're so struck by instant gratification, we can't understand what food is for.

I went to a soccer game recently - for 8 to 10 year olds. All the parents were there, loaded down with 'snacks'. The kids looked like they were having fun, but the parents came right down on them with bottled water, juice boxes, orange slices, and I wondered (as a former soccer mom) why these kids were going out to play with full stomachs?

It's about the parents, the adults. It's about responsiblity, not blame.

and there are plenty of precedent for taking on corporations who hook kids onto addictive products with methods such as coke and pepsi do.

I say sue crap out of these corporations to make up for the externalized costs that they thrust onto society- meaning- you and I. I'm sure if I sat down and went over the relevant law, I could find several legal theories to work with.

Who exactly is at fault here? Is it the company that usually pays the school district to put their product there, or the school for taking the deal?

Who is acting "in loco parentis" during the school day?

But of course the schools don't have the money to make the lawyers rich, do they?

The soft drink manufacturers have jumped in to fill a void. IMO, it is despicable of them. And the school districts that allow these machines are full of officials who need to have their heads examined.

Since when do the school staff (who act "in loco parentis", as you say) have the power to decide whether or not soft drink machines are placed in their schools? These sorts of decisions come down from on high--the feds.

If you think the school staff have such power, then how come they can't even keep military recruiters out of their schools, even if they choose to do so?

And oh, goodness! They're going for the "deep pockets", aren't they? What fucking choice do they have? Loss of money is the ONLY--the ONLY--thing that ever makes a Big Business sit up and take notice.

Since when do the school staff (who act "in loco parentis", as you say) have the power to decide whether or not soft drink machines are placed in their schools? These sorts of decisions come down from on high--the feds.

Take a fucking civics course. School districts sign contracts with soft drink companies to have the machines placed in schools. They are the ones in control and making the decision to have the machines.

That makes them responsible in my book.

No, YOU take a "fucking civics course".

Look at this:

"depakid (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-02-05 01:17 AM Response to Reply #6
9. You have no idea about this issue
We've tried in Oregon to get this shit out of schools and replace it with healthy drinks now for several legislative sessions- and every time the junk food lobby spends big money and buys off Republican lawmakers (and a few Dems) to defeat it."

Please tell that poster that he went to the wrong people. Imagine his thinking that his legislators had anything to do with representing him when he has a problem. The nerve!

At the very least, the state government is probably on the take from the soft drink companies. Of course we KNOW the honest federal government wouldn't be on the take from any corporation.

You actually think that local governments which accept federal money have the power to do things the feds don't want them to do?

I've heard a lot of blaming of local officials in an effort to get the federal government (or some Very Big Corporation) off the hook. But usually this sort of talk took place over the Hurricane Katrina mess. After all, it wasn't FEMA's fault a hurricane came! Poor FEMA!

And in case you're wondering why people can't just make/enforce laws against exploitation like this... uh, maybe it's because under the current system, the corporations write the laws. DUH!!

How do the pepsi machines get into the schools?

I'll give you the answer. Your LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT voluntarily signs a contract with them in exchange for money. If there are pop machines in your school you should take it up with them.

But I'm sure that Pepsi has appointed your local school board and funds all their campaigns, right?

being allowed to roam freely in the common areas of my kids' school.

I guess my first stop should be at my LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, huh? They can fix this problem, right?

The high property taxes here fund our schools.

I know Pepsi's and Coke's little hearts are warmed by how vigorously you defend them. Just as the tender heart of any big corporation would be warmed, and a tear brought to its eye, by the way little you charges in to defend them.

Maybe they'll send you a free 12-pack. But not me--because I say FUCK THE BIG CORPORATIONS!

So, the school can "take away" soda and snacks from kids who buy stuff at school (by removing the machines and not having any vending), but kids who walk in with a grocery bag containing a 2 liter bottle of Coke and a large bag of Doritos for lunch (and I see it all the time), they're OK? How does that work?

- and that included mine - eschew that crap in favor of healthy choices.

I'm tired of the litigious nature of our society. And I've made a tidy sum because of litigation. But, there are times when people just need to work with their kids and educate them. Trusting your kids is where it starts, and then the citizens need to go after the school boards and the institutions.

But, as for the lawsuits, no, it's just a hideous waste of time and a cover-up for abdication of responsibility.

Teach your children well, and hope for the best. That's all we can do as parents.

Parents try to get rid of these machines, but the schools hang onto them. Trying to get laws passed to get rid of them has been fruitless, the pop and snack companies have well funded lobbies.

This is the only way left to get rid of them.

"BS"(Big Soda) "rides to the rescue" with offers of lots of money to be made per school if they'll just sign on the dotted line.. the school gets uniforms, supplies, maybe a spruce up of the stadium, and in return the BS company gets to place their machines all over the school..

If the school has spent the money already, they are going to have to honor their contract..

Things that routinely were paid for by school districts..art, sports,music have all gone by the wayside to some degree, yet students and parents still want them..they just don't want to pay for them..

Good luck getting them out of the schools

Big rainmaker this attorney is, for one of the biggest law firms in the country (I've moved on and now work for ethical attorneys, thank you very much).

Having seen a LOT of the inside info on this case--because this has been brewing for the last few years--I'll just say that 1. there is absolutely merit to this case, 2. the soft drink companies are scared shitless about the case, and 3. they'll be BEYOND ruthless in fighting it.

It comes down to two major areas: the marketing and placement of these products in schools, and the use of high fructose corn syrup. I've seen the studies, as well as the opposition research, and it's going to be very interesting to watch this one play out.

As a runner, I am often on my local track when the kids are in gym class. They do nothing aerobic. The mostly stand around waiting to play 4 square or some other game that they will never play in their adult lives that could actually help them. I always wonder why they don't just have kids walk/run 8 laps in 30 minutes. That's 2 miles and they will get an A. It would be much healthier than anything else I see the kids do. I'm in agreement with what you are saying overall, but I'd prefer to education about nutrition more effectively and really, REALLY focus on what I see is a pathetic gym class curriculum.

Many schools have cut gym classes. In our district, kids take gym only one quarter of each school year.

I'm surprised at Dems who object to getting this crap out of schools.

That movie was such an ego trip. I mean, you eat fat, you get fat.

While I don't hold with any kind of vending machines being placed in schools - when did our kids become so fragile that they need snacks all the time? - I shudder at the thought of regulation or any kind of imprimatur being placed on this same sort of bullshit behavior as the lawyers who tried to sure McDonald's on behalf of a fat guy who claimed it was the chain's fault that he stuffed his head with their crap food, sat on his ass forever, and got fat.

Parents are supposed to teach kids what to eat and what not to eat. Yeah, kids will eat crap, because that's part of growing up - but why make it available to them in schools?

That's about as far as this nonsense should go.

Is it the pepsi's fault for offering the school a contract - or the school for accepting it if it harms children? Who exactly is in charge here?

And thanks for watching my back overnight, sweetie.

start making decisions regarding extracurricular nutrition? If they couldn't see the long-range ramifications of this, then they all need to refund every cent they're been paid, and turn themselves in to the jailers - if, that is, being craven and stupid were crimes.

You know I'm always backing you up, toots. Always.......

But the school districts don't have any money, so they're going after the soda companies.

One in three kids today is going to develop adult onset diabetes. One in three. My dad has diabetes. My aunt died from complications after more than 20 years of intensive medical treatments include multiple surgerys (amputations), dialysis, etc. In the end, she was blind, incontinent and confined to a wheelchair with only one working limb. Who do you think should pay the cost of one in three Americans suffering from a horrible, lingering disease?

What makes you think these same people, whom you keep saying are acting "in loco parentis", could keep the soft drink machines out of the schools??

You seem to think that the ACLU is just going after the soft drink companies themselves b/c they have more money than do the schools themselves. That's crap. Do you think that people haven't ALREADY tried administrative remedies to get these things out of the schools? Administrative remedies--such as, going after the schools themselves??

Check out depakid's post:

"We've tried in Oregon to get this shit out of schools and replace it with healthy drinks now for several legislative sessions- and every time the junk food lobby spends big money and buys off Republican lawmakers (and a few Dems) to defeat it.

As it is, there's an epidemic of obesity, dramatically increased incidence of type II diabetes and even osteoporosis in kids and young adults- not to mention serious dental problems.

These corporations use all sorts of strong arm tactics and what amounts to bribes to pressure school districts to get their crap in- and the spend hundreds of millions on child psychologists to advertise their destructive products to children who don't have the cognitive skills to recognize that they're essentially being brainwashed. Of course- most of these right wing lawmakers they fund are the ones who cut money for the school districts in the first place- forcing them to go hat in hand to the junk food purveyors.

So, not only does the government end up paying for the costs of these kids health problems- but so does everyone else in the form of higher insurance premiums.

And whenever public health minded groups try to do something about it, they run into people who know NOTHING about the issue, but are always quick on the draw with nanny state memes."

"We've tried in Oregon to get this shit out of schools and replace it with healthy drinks now for several legislative sessions- and every time the junk food lobby spends big money and buys off Republican lawmakers (and a few Dems) to defeat it.


People in Oregon tried to get a law passed banning LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS from allowing the machines in schools.

they run into people who know NOTHING about the issue,

Pot meet kettle.

These corporations use all sorts of strong arm tactics and what amounts to bribes to pressure school districts to get their crap in- and the spend hundreds of millions on child psychologists to advertise their destructive products to children who don't have the cognitive skills to recognize that they're essentially being brainwashed. Of course- most of these right wing lawmakers they fund are the ones who cut money for the school districts in the first place- forcing them to go hat in hand to the junk food purveyors.

If pop is so damn bad, why not work for a law to make the sale and consumption to children illegal? Instead of this back door, sue the bastards approach based on misplaced responsibility.

I'm supposed to go by your interpretation instead of by the plain meaning of his/her post?

You're right--I don't get that.

Here is your first post on here:

mongo (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-01-05 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. Oh boy! Nanny statists protecting "the children"
for fun and profit. There must be a shortage of ambulances to chase this week.

I hereby do not accuse you of being a freeper. However, there is always some "blowback" to the kool-aidesque propaganda that they feed the freepers. For example, for decades insurance companies have been hyping to freepers that "personal injury suits are just ruining America". That's insurance company propaganda. The problem is, some non-freepers, having heard the same thing over and over and over, are now unwittingly parroting it.

You are essentially calling the ACLU "ambulance chasers". They are not.

And IMO you are also essentially calling those who seek to design some sort of state-law refuge from the current corrupt federal government, "nanny statists".

Bullshit.

They have nothing to do with this case.

a freeper", all the while continually accusing me of "having no idea" about this, and about that, etc., etc.

Yes, I have an "idea" of what the ACLU does.

Oh, and, yes, the cigarette companies really did spike the nicotine into their product, knowing it was addictive, and then they lied about it.

I still think you're buying into the propaganda that all lawyers are horrible... fine and dandy, but consider the source of this propaganda, and then ask yourself if the source is pure as the driven snow. You might learn something.

And don't forget: the big guys employ more of those eeevil lawyers than do all the personal injury plaintiffs in the nation--combined.

Why in the world would anyone think it is a good idea to sell them soda AT SCHOOL???

Pepsi doesn't have to strong arm them to buy their product. They are young and impressionable and don't know how to make good choices about their diets. Dangle a Pepsi in front of them and their first thought will NOT be "Oh, darn, how many carbs have I had today?'

Ever hear of Joe Camel? :eyes:

just that it is ultimately SCHOOL DISTRICTS who decide whether or not the machines will be in the school, and they are responsible, not the beverage companies.

making the product available to school children. Not such deep pockets as the soft drink cos. I guess.

the school districts:

"We've tried in Oregon to get this shit out of schools and replace it with healthy drinks now for several legislative sessions- and every time the junk food lobby spends big money and buys off Republican lawmakers (and a few Dems) to defeat it.

As it is, there's an epidemic of obesity, dramatically increased incidence of type II diabetes and even osteoporosis in kids and young adults- not to mention serious dental problems.

These corporations use all sorts of strong arm tactics and what amounts to bribes to pressure school districts to get their crap in- and the spend hundreds of millions on child psychologists to advertise their destructive products to children who don't have the cognitive skills to recognize that they're essentially being brainwashed. Of course- most of these right wing lawmakers they fund are the ones who cut money for the school districts in the first place- forcing them to go hat in hand to the junk food purveyors.

So, not only does the government end up paying for the costs of these kids health problems- but so does everyone else in the form of higher insurance premiums.

And whenever public health minded groups try to do something about it, they run into people who know NOTHING about the issue, but are always quick on the draw with nanny state memes."

"Last time I checked pepsi wasn't standing at the school doors forcing students to buy their product."

It's fairly common these days for school districts to enter into exclusive beverage contracts with soda vendors. Of course, the big Two - Coke and Pepsi - have the majority of these exclusives. So this means that, if there are soda machines in schools, they are Pepsi or Coke.

Further, many of the contracts have language guaranteeing a certain level of sales each month, in exchange for a large upfront cash payment by the vendor. If the sales quotas are not met, there are penalties to be deducted from the monthly reimbursement percentage of sales to the school.

So, I'd say the kids are being "forced" to buy product to some extent. And when you watch just how much pop these kids can drink, it's not a stretch to see it's impact on obesity.

It is if you have a captive audience.

Pepsi doesn't have to "stand at the school doors forcing students to buy their product." They can just go to the school administrators and force THEM (using as a tool of this extortion, the schools' need for money) to sell the products to the kiddies, who, b/c they are kiddies, do NOT have the discernment to understand what is good for them and what is not.

It's a bit too libertarian for my taste to apply the usual "if you don't like it, don't buy it" canard to CHILDREN. Do you have any experience with children? If a kid can be persuaded/tricked to go off with a stranger who will harm them--and lots of kids could, including the very intelligent Adam Walsh--then they can be persuaded/tricked into doing anything.

And btw, I'm sick of fucking advertising surrounding us every minute of our lives--even when we (as children) are supposedly learning about the world and being prepared to be productive citizens. I'm tired of having an "economy" instead of a culture. That's also why so many foreign countries hate us. A few people still actually think there may be something more to life than profit, profit, profit, profit.

that Pepsi is a legal product for children to buy and cigarettes isn't.

And... hey, he's always right!

so giant, greedy, soft drink corporations can make big profits??

Don't come and tell me "they have a choice not to buy it." BULLSHIT!!! Kids have a choice to stay outdoors all night and hang out, too, but mean people like parents stop them from doing so. Kids want to do a lot of things that aren't good for them. That's why nature puts them in the care of parents and other adults. If you actually think kids can exercise judgment on a par with that of adults, you must not have ever been around kids.

There are some things worse than the (largely imaginary) "nanny" state. One of them is a corporatocracy. In case we children haven't noticed, our "nanny" is no longer old Mama U.S. Government--while we were asleep, an evil group of molesters sneaked in and they're our "nanny" now. They're collectively called "Big Business".

I fail to see how taking soft drink machines out of schools is overprotecting kids. Many of us grew up with nary a soft drink machine in our schools, and we were not "overprotected."

"Chase ambulances"?? You've been drinking the repukelican Kool-aid, I see. One sign of this is the tendency to classify all litigation as "tort" litigation. This is an ignorant way to look at it.

I used to hate the ACLU b/c my heroes, the right wing, told me to. I woke up in 2003 and now I realize that the ACLU is one of the very few protections we have left in this increasingly oppressive state.

Which brings us right back to your phrase: "nanny state". WHEN has the government been more intrusive than it is now??? Just look at the Jose Padilla case, for just one example. That could be YOU or ME. Talk about "nanny state"! This current government isn't a nanny state--it's so controlling, it makes even a nanny state look downright benign by comparison.

they are one of my heros.

And you're right about our intrusive government. I'm on the bleeding edge of that everyday. I risk arrest everyday for selling a movie to consenting adults made by consenting adults. So don't try to insinuate that I'm a fucking freeper again.

I never said that taking soft drink machines out of schools is overprotecting kids. They probably don't belong in schools period, although I would give HS age kids the option.

The problem is sueing a company for manufacturing a legal product, under some guise of "protecting the children" in our schools, when it is YOUR LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT who is responsible for the machine being there in the first place.

I don't see how you could think a mere local school district could go up against a gigantic corporation when the public schools are beholden to the feds who LOVE, and are currently run by, gigantic corporations.

They are not "sueing a company for manufacturing a legal product". They are trying to keep companies from using unfair tactics to market their "legal products" to children whose health is compromised by the overuse of such "legal products".

Alcohol is also a "legal product". Would you support pushing it in schools? For that matter, CD's are also "legal products". Should they, also, be marketed in schools? How about the latest clothing styles? Fake fingernails? Cellphones?

Or how about the fucking greedy-ass corporations leave the kids alone in a place where they're supposed to be learning, not BUYING??

I don't see how you could think a mere local school district could go up against a gigantic corporation when the public schools are beholden to the feds who LOVE, and are currently run by, gigantic corporations.


So do you think the soft drink companies come into the school with two guys wielding baseball bats to bust the place up?

No, they come in with a bucket of money to a new press box for the stadium (with their logo on the side of course), and the school (which is cash strapped because the local VOTERS shot down the recent school levy) signs a contract with the company to bring in revenue. How is this unfair on the part of the soft drink companies? The local school district is under no obligation to sign this contract.

how about the fucking greedy-ass corporations leave the kids alone in a place where they're supposed to be learning, not BUYING??

How about the local school district putting student's health above money and not allowing these machines to be placed in the schools.

If there is anyone who is greedy in this situation, it is VOTERS who won't pass school levies.

It's the PEOPLE who are to blame. They have never been scammed. They should know better. They DESERVE to be exploited!

Fuck that.

Sure. The only time the people ever get scammed, it's because it's their own damn fault. I guess that's what we should tell all the people who got scammed over the fake intel about "Iraq's nuclear program"--let's just tell 'em "Shut the fuck up--you deserve to suffer now because you bought the scam in the first place!"

After all, each and every voter in the nation has representatives who do nothing all day long but speedily answer their concerns. Right.

You've got to be kidding me.

money?

And we weren't talking about the fake intel -- I'm sure we agree about that.

I'm sure you have the ability to understand an analogy?

My local school district DOES have enough money.

I'm sure the districts that had to prostitute themselves to "Big Soda" were ones which didn't have enough money. That's the usual way: screw the poorer ones, they can't protect themselves.

Since when does Pepsi qualify for sainthood? It may not be their fault that a school district "doesn't have enough money", but it IS their fault if they insist on marketing to children in a place where the parents are not able to protect the kids. And pls don't give me that "school officials act in loco parentis" crap. Yes, it's the school officials who take care of the kids btw 8 and 3, but it's a little harder to goad hundreds of kids into choosing healthy foods, than it is to goad 2 or 3 kids into doing so.

I refuse to be sympathetic to any large corporation which is clearly taking advantage--even if what they were doing were technically legal. Case in point: the sugary breakfast cereals. They were (rightly) accused of deliberately placing their prettily-packaged sugary products where the kiddies would see them first and, on the usual trip to the grocery, would then torment mom until she bought at least one box of the sugar-cubes-masquerading-as-cereal. People were understandably outraged.

Then there was the brouhaha about how Nestle sold baby formula in 3rd world countries, when they knew darn well that breastfeeding was the better option for babies especially in those countries.

I am always skeptical when I see an individual gallantly defending a Big Giant Corporation. What's in it for the individual, I wonder? Pepsi ain't gonna pay them anything. Pepsi will just laugh and say, "Oh, good, we scored another idiot... I mean, customer..."

But, hey, let's just get back to the gist of your original post: all lawyers are greedy "ambulance-chaser" fucks, and all giant corporations are their poor, innocent little victims.

"insinuate that you are a fucking freeper?"

Let me guess: was it when I said Rush Limbaugh agrees with you? That wasn't an insinuation, that was a statement of fact. Rush Limbaugh does agree with you.

I know this because I used to listen to him. And guess what: I hated the ACLU. I was wrong to listen to The Addict, and I was wrong to hate the ACLU.

I now applaud the ACLU--but not because, say, they and their suits are useful to my making a living. I applaud them because they are doggedly fighting this mis-administration's fascistic ways.

.. right down to the facile "ambulance chase" image.

Guess what: republicans file personal injury suits, too. Just as many such suits as others file. Which makes their insurance-company-driven "personal-injury-suits-are-ruining-America" drivel just a bit hypocritical.

But hey, just 'cause someone's being hypocritical is no reason not to believe every word they say, right?

I am not accusing you of being a republican. I am saying that you are swallowing republican propaganda without properly questioning it.

They will target the healthy cafeteria food next.

Product placement, I notice those damm sodas all the time. Coke and Pepsi are the biggest culprits! I even saw them in rated PG movies!

They will have to change the movie ratings to R if it contains a product placement for Coke or Pepsi.

And that is a mistake the results of which I have seen with my own eyes. It ain't pretty.

But not to worry! Some Very Big Corporation will no doubt one day decide that it can make obscenely large profits by selling weight-training equipment to the schools--and then "physical education" (or at least weight training) will again be a required course!

Big Business--ALWAYS looking out for you and me!:)

The concern about soda/snack machines in schools is not about having a nanny state and taking away your (adult) freedom to eat yourself into oblivion on Twinkies, Coke, and Fritos. Go ahead, I'm not your mother.

It's about the broader issue of corporations and THEIR control over our lives. It's about adults taking charge of protecting children from corporations which have no morality, no ethics, no concern for anything but their bottom line. Yoo-hoo, DUers, remember the evil corporations?

Here's why sodas are in schools: Schools are being starved for money, and soda machines are there as money-making enterprises.

One of the "extras" that's been cut in many school districts is Phys Ed.

Sodas cause the following:
Bone loss (the "soda" part leaches calcium out of bones)
Tooth decay (sugar)
Obesity (sugar)
Type II diabetes (sugar and obesity)
Their empty calories crowd out nutritious food, such as milk, which is not dispensed from these machines anyway

There is a public health crisis in this country, which you will know about if you read the Health section of any good newspaper. It's Type II diabetes in our children. Until recent years it was thought that only adults got this kind of diabetes, so it was called "Adult onset diabetes." Now there is a literal epidemic among our kids.

Diabetes can kill you eventually, and not very pleasantly. You can go blind, get kidney failure, lose toes and legs to gangrene.

It's easy for non-parents to judge the load of parents. It's easy for parents of placid little lambs to judge the parents of headstrong children with a craving for sweets. When I was a schoolkid my mom gave us kids lunch money and we got a hearty mid-day meal; if there had been soda/snack machines on campus my own brother would have eaten that instead. I lectured my kids on nutrition and packed good lunches, but when they were out of my sight I know what my daughter spent her money on because she craved sweets.

Another dig at corporations/corporate advertising, and then I'll stop and get some sleep because it's just about 3:30 am where I am.

First, just so you know, I believe in personal responsibility for what goes in my mouth.

Second, you and I know advertising works like magic or corporations wouldn't waste their money on it.

Third (and here's where Supersize Me actually got it right) food has been commodified by corporate advertising. It has been changed from a pleasurable and life-sustaining element of our lives into something that is brightly colored, extra salty, extra sugary, extra fatty -- and pushed on us from every angle, every media, every waking minute of our days and nights.

In other words, what we put in our mouths is just one more thing that corporations sell and sell and sell, and what they sell is not about our lives and health, our pleasure and social life, it's about their profits, and they don't care if your or your children die from it.

So at least let's try to save the kids from the bastards. Send more money to the schools and insist they remove the soda/snack vending machines from the campuses.

Hekate
:argh:

:hi:

Ok - who is responsible for the childrens safety and well being during the school day? The school or the Pepsi corporation?

Who signed a contract allowing Pepsi to place their machines in the school?

First, just so you know, I believe in personal responsibility for what goes in my mouth.

But you don't believe a school district is responsible for their decisions.

Second, you and I know advertising works like magic or corporations wouldn't waste their money on it.

Must go do what the TV tells me to now. The eeeevil TV. I am a lowly sheep that must do it's bidding. Baaaa! It's awful hard buying a new car, hitting two fast food restaurants and making hamburger helper every 10 minutes. Oh crap - have to go buy some fleece at Old Navy and get yet another car insurance policy now - BYE!

It's not all about you, Mongo.

Hekate

and if it was about the children, people would be going after the local school districts who signed contracts to place these machines in the schools.

Yes, I believe the district/principal is in part resposible for these decisions. These "pusher" contracts should be illegal. Schools should not be in the business of pushing unhealthy substances on their students.

Of course, whenever local boards try to get such laws passed, the corporations come after them with barrels blasting.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of these corps were behind earlier state/local politicians' decisions to cut school funding--the marketing opportunities just proved to perfect for them.

And yes, junior high and high school students are particularly susceptible to their campaigns.

I could spend a day and not get it together as well as you have so stated. The adults need to start taking care of their children and not leave it to the corps. BTW...BIG problem here in Boise and I presume the rest of Idaho.

...our "village" is letting the corporate and military "lions" run amuck, and they're picking off our kids and spitting the bones out.

It's kind of distressing to realize how many DUers are not so much Progressive as they are Libertarian. (The current thread on video game regulation is a case in point.) And so far in my life every Libertarian I've ever met has reiterated what the first one told me when I was a struggling single mom 25 years ago: "Lady, you chose to have those kids. Why should you expect my tax money to pay for their (public) schools?"

And DUers, if you don't know the difference between a Progressive agenda and a Libertarian one on that issue....

Hekate

We lived overseas with our young ones for over a decade. We experienced the attention and community affection that a 'village' offers all chlldren. Our hosts truly feel that children belong to everyone. Children are our collective future. We have struggled since returning to the 'States. We refuse to let Madison Avenue define our wants, aspirations and values.
It is an almost impossible task. Still trying to figure out if we can even fit in anymore.
America offers so much but it cannot be run by the merchants. I don't know. Maybe the idiot box has done it's job too well. Ergo my sig...

I don't know exactly how to put this, but a family shrink who got to know us (me, the kids, and their stepdad) during their outrageous adolescence told us that we were "the most counter-culture family he'd ever known."

My husband and I just stared at him, because what people usually mean by that is Birkenstocks and tie-dye, right? And I was an admin asst who wanted to go back to grad school and my husband was a computer programmer/systems analyst and we owned a house. Because of my job I favored suits; my husband thought he was a rebel for refusing to wear a tie. rofl, right? Soooo straight and middle-aged.

But he explained himself by saying that all of us were/are just not motivated by money, as such. We all are motivated by other things, like education and doing a job really well, and our cars are elderly and we don’t care. I didn't want to further my career by getting an MBA, I wanted to take comp lit classes. Our kids, outrageous as they were at the time, were readers from an early age, and for their summer work-experience I went out of my way to steer them toward public service. My husband was already reading deeply into Buddhism.

We wanted the kids to think for themselves and be able to resist mindless conformity, whether it’s called peer pressure or mass culture.

We didn’t think this made us counter-culture, but apparently it did.

You and your family are off to a good start being counter-culture, too. Fill the house with books and continue to not yield any more space to the tv than is absolutely necessary. Work on making your own version of a village support system.

And Niall, I hope it works out well for you, because right now the US needs more families like yours, families who have an expectation that it is not only desirable but normal for all members of society to care about what happens to all children.

Hekate

We live in the reddest of the red states so sometimes the walls close in. We are only here because of my dad. We'll be here as long as he is among the living. He is 102 years old and doing great so no immediate plans.
We will then be looking for an information rich community, perhaps a university town.
So many parallels to your lives I can't tell you.

between a progressive agenda and a fascist one either.

Also, how many DU'ers have no respect for our constitution.

Some would allow the government to control every aspecct of our lives -- as long as it fits their world view.

a proximate cause between the sale and marketing of high caloric, fat, or sugar foods and obesity. The precedent of making links like this puts the state in our personal business (from reproductive rights, to controlled substances to the content of radio and tv) and just adds to decreased sense of autonomy. Lets all get the fuck out of each others hair.

He's been railing about suits like these for years.

And if you can't trust Rush Limbaugh, who can you trust? :)

make the rich lawyers richer, and pay all of the people behind the suit enough to buy a 6 pack of the soda. the paypal class action law suit will pay the lawyers around 50 million and the claimants about 9 bucks.

go ahead and try to say they punish the company who get sued, but it really makes rich lawyers richer

Of that's right- you don't have one. You just dislike lawyers (until you need one, that is).

action lawsuits.

Why should lawyers not be paid for work they do?

Each member of the class, in a class action suit, gets back what they lost due to the defendants' actions. I think that's called "fair".

If a corporation steals exactly $1.00 from each of 250,000,000 people, the corporation has stolen $250,000,000. But each person has been personally harmed only slightly, and who has the money/time to go to court to collect exactly $1.00? Nobody.

So we shouldn't complain. So what if a corporation steals $1.00 from each of $250,000,000 people? Corporations gotta eat, too!

the lawyers would make 82.5 million plus expenses. i would feel better if the .gov would take the case, and lets say only take 10 % to put in the .gov's bank account, then i might get 85 cents back out of my 1 dollar. or how about the .gov justs uses our tax money to handle the case and we get our whole dollar back.

whole dollar back??!? What??! The government NEEDS that money to fund the Iraq boondoggle/plunderfest!

People who pull the sort of scams targeted by class action suits are counting on their victims to not bother to try to get back what they were scammed out of.

You could say that if an employee is subjected to unfair treatment from his employer, he needn't bother to fight back because what's the use of one little guy going up against the company. But suppose a lot of "little guys" are being unfairly treated by their employer? Isn't the solution to start a union?

A class action suit is the only practicable way to keep corporations from scamming each person just a little, and thus stealing millions.

For decades now, the insurance companies (in particular) have been selling this idea that "all lawyers are bad". Yet who employs the most lawyers? The insurance companies. Oh, but see (they will tell you), those are GOOD lawyers. Translation: WE get to have lawyers, but YOU shouldn't ever have the assistance of a lawyer.

God forbid any lawyer should be paid for what he or she does. It's not fair! They should work "pro bono"! You know, though, it's a funny thing. When I suggested to my electrician that he work pro bono, he just gave me a funny look, and held out his hand. So did my construction contractor. So did my plumber. So did my doctor. So did my dentist. So did my kids' teachers. So did the guy who just cleaned off my roof. So did the Cable TV company. So did the electric company. So did the grocery store. So did the babysitter. So did the pharmacy. So did the insurance company. So did the car salesman. So did the realtor. So did the Starbucks. So did the file clerk.

For some reason, none of them feels cheap for earning money for what they do. I just can't figure it out.

... the use of corn syrup (a vile, useless "food" if there ever was one) instead of just going blanket "soda", I might be able to get behind it.

As it is, people buy sodas of their own volition. The only issue is whether they are buying something that is reasonable to consume or not.

have you ever noticed how addictive Coca-cola can be? I have experienced this phenomenon myself. I think it's the caffeine.

I drank a lot of coke as a child. (But NOT at school.) I remember being unable to sleep. I was always the smallest kid in my class, right up to about 5th grade.

Somehow, I don't feel that drinking coke really helped me all that much.

Fill the vending machines with milk, Water and Juice, and turn the vending machines off at lunch-time. Also, stop the double standards, if kids can only have water in the classroom, teacher's shold be only allowed what kids are allowed in the classroom, or coffee.

...with fruit flavoring and fruit concentrates added. And the particular form of sugar is, yep, you guessed it! The same high-fructose corn syrup that's a major ingredient in soda syrup.

Why do there need to be vending machines in schools at all? What's wrong with a trip to the water fountain if you're thirsty between classes?

People who are truly outraged about the garbage food & drink being dangled in front of kids at schools need to show up en masse at the school board meetings with "NO VENDING MACHINES" t-shirts, "I VOTE" buttons, and mean expressions on their faces. That's all. They don't even have to talk. Just show up.

In a lifetime of acquaintaince with local politics, I can pretty much guarantee you that 200 people showing up just like that at any average school board meeting in any average-size school district in America will trump corporate bribes, whiney administrators, and every other representative of the Forces of Evil.

helpfully,
Bright

you may be right about the 200 people showing up at a board meeting. However, there would be about 200 from the other side who would be just as outraged that vending was being removed. I've seen it here in my district (well, reduce it to about 15 on either side and it would be accurate; I guess the rest just don't give a damn).

I've heard from parents who demand that candy bars be sold at school because her Johnny gets hungry and needs a Snickers. I've had calls from parents who are mad that we've removed fryers from our kitchens because the French fries don't taste as good. I've dealt with teachers who are mad that we turn off the vending machines at lunch (required by fed regs if the machines are in the cafeteria and you're on the federal Free/Reduced lunch program).

My point is, there are a lot of people on the other side of the issue, and getting vending completely out of schools is more difficult than you might think.

its unhealthy and if they want to feed them that crap, do it at home. Since when is it the schools responsibility to feed kids candy and junk food? It isn't. Your job is to teach and give them access to a healthy balanced meal at lunchtime. Thats it.

Then stop making excuses and get rid of the vending machines.

Even a number of people on this post alone would disagree with you (you can read them for yourself). Your approach sounds pretty dictatorial, which is far too simplistic to apply to schools today.

I'm comfortable with what we've come up with as a compromise, as are my parents.

Its sad the schools haven't taken this step on their own.

This should save us millions in federal and state funds now being wasted on "anti-obesity" programs. Silly to spend that money on brochures, pamphlets and messages to parents when its the school that plays the biggest role in childhood obesity through sale of junk food and drink combined with cutting of gym classes.

Education in the US needs major reform.

" . . . when its the school that plays the biggest role in childhood obesity through sale of junk food and drink combined with cutting of gym classes"

First of all, we have the kids - what? 6-7 hours a day? And WE play the "biggest" role in their obesity? I'd bet 9 out of 10 of our kids goes home and sits at the Xbox for 5 hours, munching Doritos and Coke that they DIDN'T buy here at school. Further, I see kids come in every damn day with a pop and bag of chips for lunch. And that's OUR fault, too?

Second, not everyone has cut gym and P.E. We haven't. I know a lot of others HAVE, and that's been in response to the Feds demand that test scores go up. P.E., Art and Music aren't tested; ergo, they get cut in favor of double math classes, remedial reading, etc.

As far as "major reform" goes, that's true. We've dismantled all of our schools and created small schools with various pedagogies (Expeditionary Learning, Coalition of Essential Schools, New Technology High, International Baccalaureate, etc.). And now we have to fit in fixing children's health into the mix? We can do our part, but there's only so many fires we can put out with our part of their day.

My kids don't sit around eating snack foods, they never have. Same situation with most of the other families I know.

My kids also know better than to buy this crap at school, but I know that occasionally they do. As much as I'd like to attend school with them, I have to make a living. I'd like to be able to trust them to an environment where they and other kids like them aren't subjected to the easy means of blowing their lunch money on pop and candy. I'd also like them to go to a school where they have gym 2 or 3 days a week, but none of that is possible, not in this state. And BTW, I live in a wealthy school district, one of the "top schools" in the state - whatever that means.

Teachers and school administrators need to take responsibility for the work they do and the environment of the school instead of taking the "easy out" of blaming parents. Our school consistently hosts appearances by state elected officials (and even Bush himself) and teachers constantly teach right wing crap in class. But they complain like crazy when the leaders they support screw them over on funding.

Its time for a reality check in the education system or we'll see the end of public education in the next 10 years.

I don't understand what your post has to do with mine.

Are you saying that as administrators we should just unilaterally pull all vending? How does that square with the push to give parents more voice in how the school is run? Not all parents believe as you do - for good or ill.

Are you saying that by pointing out the parents' role in obesity we're "blaming parents"? I was only pointing out your patently erroneous statement that schools are "primarily" responsible for childhood obesity. We only have the kids for a few hours a day - how is it that we are totally responsible for everything they eat? Even if we eliminated all vending totally, are we going to search backpacks for contraband Snicker bars?

Are you saying that in spite of major reform efforts we're still not "checking reality"? If there's another reality we need to see, I wish someone would point it out to me. But first, I'd like to see some consensus on this "reality" thing because I'm beginning to feel like we're being forced to tilt at windmills here. Give parents more voice, less voice, turn it all over to teachers, get rid of all the teachers, teach p.e., teach more basics - it's enough to make you run screaming out of the room.