Child obesity has been proven to have gotten reprehensible over the past decade. People say that the snacks in the school should be banned. Could it be the schools that are promoting it when they sell their sugary treats and is it their responsibility to ban them? No, schools do not have the responsibility to ban the treats because even if they did the kids would bring their own, there would be a financial loss, and a huge budget impact.
Indeed, if junk food was banned from schools the kids would bring their own junk food from their homes. Eventually, the kids would commence to bring candy and drinks to school and sell them to their fellow classmates creating a black market of sugary treats. Also, if schools were to completely change their entire diet and sell “organic” or “healthier” things it would cost so much more for the seller and the buyer. Last but not least there would be a budget cut from the kids’ extracurricular activities. There would not be enough money to provide nonnecessities for kids that have hobbies or their fun field trips because they would be too worried about the kids’ “diet.”
By the same token, if the sale of junk food was banned the kids would still bring their “junk” from home so the statistics of childhood obesity would be exactly the same. I found proof of this by “Some predict kids will just bring soft drinks and candy from home” (Source B). The candy or soft drinks are bought when students’ parents don’t feel like going to the store, so instead the parent gives money to get it at school. With the junk food ban kids wouldn’t have anything interesting to eat and might end up not eating at all. You can’t force a child to eat something they don’t like it.
Furthermore, healthier foods cost a lot more than the “junk food” being sold. If schools were to go organic there would be a devastating financial loss. Not every school has a lot of money like the private schools in the world. They make their money off of the things the sell and the fundraisers. Stated in the article, “Changes will have a negative financial impact on School Food Service and difficult decisions about funding will need to be addressed in the future” (Source D). Believe it or not schools should not have a financial loss if they keep selling the miscellaneous foods and drinks.
Additionally, the extracurricular activities for students will be cut off the budget. Stated in Source F “With dozens of machines lining their hallways, some schools annually earn $50,000 or more in commissions, then use the money for marching bands, computer centers and field trips that might otherwise fall by the wayside,” gives proof of the budget cut. Extracurricular activities aren’t a must but every kid loves field trips and it’s a break from the hard work in school. Also, if there were budget cuts schools directly point towards the sports because they are the most expensive. It is guaranteed that if there are no sports then schools will lose students.
On the other hand, sometimes schools will send “mixed messages.” But critics say schools send a mixed message by teaching good nutrition and then selling high-fat, high-sugar snacks to students (Source B). Yes students are taught that but that is up to the child and parents to decide about the diet. Teachers are just informing the students about the information and explaining the consequences. The Arizona School Boards Association and the Arizona Association of School Business Officials oppose the bill… “This issue should be left to the local parents, the local school districts… (Source B).
In conclusion, schools do not have the responsibility of banning the junk food because it can do a lot of harm to the schools. A budget loss could occur and serious financial impacts. Students will bring their own junk food from home anyways so what is the point of banning them?