( 51) Diet P

The “School of “Self-Applied” Prevention

askmh108@earthlink.net

Educational Purposes Only!

Free – Thinking Adults Only!

“Self-Experimental” Use Only!

Diet Popvideo watch

Diet Coke (read)

The best 2 hour documentary about pop years ago showed how it cost 1/2 penny to use cane sugar over corn syrup. Then spent 2 hours documentation the chemical known as corn syrup is created during the manufacturing of plastics. Then ended saying corn syrup altered the dna of children and after consuming hundreds of pounds of corn syrup filled candies, drinks, foods; the child is no longer human and altered into a partial human as a result.

Otherwise when diet coke was introduced in the factory I worked at for 30 years, every worker that tried diet coke, became addicted and started drinking 6-8 cans every day as they all gained weight. later on in life they found it near impossible to break the addiction and some found success using hypnotist to help break the extreme habit.Some found success with acupuncturist.

Just public / internet info

There are endless videos / articles about the dangers of pop drinking!

Who drinks the most? (video)

1. read

2.

3.

4.video

5. video

6. video

7. read

8. video

Trump Button

Schools paid $$ to install pop machines!

Prevention Institute 265 29 th Street Oakland, CA 94611 (510) 444-PREV(7738) www.preventioninstitute.org
1
Soft Drink Contracts in Schools
This paper is part of a series of nutrition policy profiles prepared by Prevention Institute for the
Center for Health Improvement (CHI).
Background
An increasing number of school districts in the United States are entering into exclusive “pouring
rights” contracts with soft drink corporations, predominantly the Coca-Cola Company and
PepsiCo. In exchange for direct payments, school districts agree to sell only one company’s
products in vending machines and at all school events. Contract conditions frequently include
the prominent display of advertising and marketing materials on school grounds and may include
incentive payments for greater sales at the school sites. As many school districts struggle to pay
for basic education, these contracts are an enticing extra source of funding to help pay for sports
equipment, computers, or furniture.1 Yet the promotion of high-sugar, high-caffeine beverages is
in direct conflict with the mission of schools to promote the welfare of students.
Soft drink beverages add unneeded calories and caffeine to the diets of children and youth
without any beneficial fiber, vitamins and minerals, or other nutrients. In the last seven years,
teenagers have tripled their consumption of soft drinks.2 As rates of obesity in U.S. children rise
steadily (there was a 100 percent increase between 1980 and 1994) this is a source of great
concern. Obesity increases risk for a host of chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and
diabetes.3 Extra calories from soft drinks could account for rising rates of adolescent obesity.4 A
newly published study by Dr. David Ludwig of Boston Children’s Hospital found that children’s
odds of becoming obese increased 1.6 times for each additional can or glass of sugar-sweetened
soda they consumed per day.5 Another cause for concern about rising soft drink consumption is
its impact on bone health. Research has indicated that physically active women and girls who
drink colas may be more likely to have bone fractures.6
According to the Center for Commercial-Free Public Education, by October 1999, 150 “pouring
rights” contracts existed in at least 30 states.7 In a recent survey of 171 California school
districts, 24 percent reported having exclusive contracts with soft drink or fast food companies.8
While high schools are the primary target for these companies, PepsiCo and the Coca-Cola
Company are clear that reaching younger students is an important strategy for establishing brand
loyalty early.9 Contracts constitute a de facto endorsement by schools of corporate efforts to
increase soft drink consumption among children and youth. Moreover, they cultivate habits that
young students will retain as adults.
Policy
State and local Boards of Education should prohibit exclusive marketing contracts between
school districts and soft drink companies.
Eliminating exclusive soft drink contracts can help protect children against the negative health
effects of consuming soft drinks instead of healthier foods. One model policy was passed in 1999
Prevention Institute 265 29 th Street Oakland, CA 94611 (510) 444-PREV(7738) www.preventioninstitute.org
2
by the San Francisco Board of Education. As part of the broader “Commercial-Free Schools
Act” (which was passed to set limits on advertising in the schools), San Francisco schools were
prohibited from entering into a district-wide exclusive contract with a soft drink or snack food
company. Other elements of the Act include a commitment to making healthy drinks and healthy
snacks available to students, and eliminating the purchase or use of curriculum materials that
feature brand names.10
Effectiveness
Though the number of soft drink contracts is rising, more and more schools are rejecting these
deals. The Center for Commercial-Free Public Education has identified 30 districts that have
refused contracts with soft drink companies. According to San Francisco Board of Education
member Jill Winns, the passage of the Commercial-Free Schools Act “made it clear that schools
are here to serve children, not commercial interests.”11 While children still face heavy marketing
outside the schools, school districts can create safe havens where students are not subjected to
commercial messages. This can make a difference in the eating habits of children. For example,
at U.S. Congressional hearings for the 1994 School Lunch amendments, one high school food
service director testified that when cola companies began implementing advertising and
incentives at her school, participation in the school lunch program declined by half.12 Rejecting
exclusive beverage contracts limits the ability of soft drinks to compete with school meals.
Students participating in school meal programs have been shown to consume healthier diets than
non-participants.13
Contacts
The Center for Commercial-Free Public Education
Tel: (510) 268-1100
Web site: www.commercialfree.org
California Project LEAN (Leaders Encouraging Activity and Nutrition)
P.O. Box 942732 MS 675
Sacramento, CA 94234
Tel: (916) 323-4742
Web site: www.dhs.ca.gov/lean
Acknowledgments
Peggy Agron, MA, RD, Director of Project LEAN, California Department of Health Services,
Sacramento, CA
Dylan Bernstein, Senior Program Director, The Center for Commercial-Free Public Education,
Oakland, CA
Prevention Institute 265 29 th Street Oakland, CA 94611 (510) 444-PREV(7738) www.preventioninstitute.org
3
Advisory Committee
Kate Clancy, Ph.D., Director of the Henry A. Wallace Center for Agriculture and Environmental
Policy at WINROCK International, Rosslyn, VA
Andy Fisher, Executive Director, National Community Food Security Coalition, Venice, CA
Arnell Hinkle, RD, MPH, CHES, Executive Director, California Adolescent Nutrition and
Fitness Program (CANFit), Berkeley, CA
Sheldon Margen, MD, Professor Emeritus, Public Health Nutrition, University of California at
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
Marion Nestle, MPH, Ph.D., Chair, Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, New York
University, New York, NY
Margo Wootan, D.Sc., Director of Nutrition Policy, Center for Science in the Public Interest,
Washington, DC
Prevention Institute’s nutrition policy profile series is funded in part by a grant from The
California Wellness Foundation (TCWF). Created in 1992 as an independent, private
foundation, TCWF’s mission is to improve the health of the people of California by making
grants for health promotion, wellness education, and disease prevention programs.
1 Nestle M. Soft drink pouring rights. Public Health Reports. 2000;115:308-319.
2 Jacobson MF. Liquid candy: how soft drinks are harming Americans’ health. [Center for Science in the Public
Interest Web site]. October 1998. Available at: http://www.cspinet.org/sodapop/liquid_candy.htm. Accessed April
26, 2002.
3 Troiano RP, Flegal KM, Kuczmarski RJ, Campbell SM, Johnson CL. Overweight prevalence and trends for
children and adolescents: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1963 to 1991. Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 1995;149:1085-1091.
4 Nestle M. Soft drink pouring rights. Public Health Reports. 2000;115:308-319.
5 Ludwig DS, Peterson KE, Gortmaker SL. Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood
obesity: a prospective, observational analysis. The Lancet. 2001;357:505-508.
6 Wyshak G. Teenaged girls, carbonated beverage consumption, and bone fractures. Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine. 2000;154:610-613.
7 Information Packet on Exclusive-Rights Cola Deals. Oakland, Calif: The Center for Commercial-Free Public
Education; 1999.
8 Samuels and Associates. 2000 California High School Fast Food Survey: Findings and Recommendations.
Berkeley, Calif: Public Health Institute; 2000.
9 Nestle M. Soft drink pouring rights. Public Health Reports. 2000;115:308-319.
10 The Commercial-Free Schools Act (Prohibiting Exclusive Vendor Contracts, Brand Names, and Tobacco
Subsidiary Food Products). Amendment to Resolution No. 95-25A6 (Version No. 3). San Francisco Unified School
District Board of Education, June 22, 1999.
11 Information Packet on Exclusive-Rights Cola Deals. Oakland, Calif: The Center for Commercial-Free Public
Education; 1999.
12 Nestle M. Soft drink pouring rights. Public Health Reports. 2000;115:308-319.
13 Ibid.