[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 44 (Wednesday, April 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
CHILD NUTRITION VERSUS COCA-COLA
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for
yielding. I have a couple of points I would like to make.
As chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, I
have stood on the Senate floor and defended child nutrition programs
hundreds of times.
I have seen child nutrition programs go through all kinds of attacks.
I have fended off attacks from drug companies, petty crooks, and price
fixers, budget cuts, criticism of all kinds. I never thought I would
see the day that I would have to defend our child nutrition programs,
under heavy attack from none other than the Coca-Cola Co., an American
corporate giant. Coca-Cola is out to nail our kids and child nutrition
programs right along with them. The crooks, the cheats, the price
fixers, all the others, I can understand. But Coca-Cola? And what have
they done? They have launched a stealth campaign to kill the ``Better
Nutrition and Health for Children Act of 1994.'' This corporate giant
is taking on our children.
They know--and unfortunately so do too many in Congress--that
children do not vote; children do not hand out large sums of PAC money;
children cannot hire expensive lobbyists. Corporate giants have the
PAC's, the lobbyists, the money, all the things the children do not
have. But I think this is a fight that children should win over Coca-
Cola. I am always going to put the welfare of children ahead of
corporate giants.
The Better Nutrition and Health for Children Act of 1994 is a good
bill. The legislation is supported by: the American Academy of
Pediatrics; the American Heart Association; the American Cancer
Society; the Children's Defense Fund; the American School Food Service
Association, and a lot of other groups that care more for people than
profits. But Coca-Cola is lobbying hard against the bill. The groups
that do want this bill know that good eating habits developed in
childhood have a major affect on lifelong health. But what Coke is
doing is running to schools, and they are asking them to lobby Congress
to not pursue my bill.
While this is not illegal, you have to ask what motivates them. Coca-
Cola is not acting as if they are motivated by the health and welfare
of children.
My office has become aware of three documents circulated by Coca-
Cola. There is an internal strategy memo detailing methods to defeat
provisions of my legislation. There is a letter to State education
officials requesting their support in opposing my bill. And they have
even--to show how helpful they can be--sent out a form letter for
opponents to send to their Senators. Basically, what they are saying
is: You may interfere with Coke's profits so do not do anything to help
child nutrition.
Mr. President, to add insult to injury in this case, the Coca-Cola
Co. is relying on misinformation about my legislation. They are
resorting to scare tactics instead of honest debate. The Coca-Cola
memorandum of February 24, 1994, contains four inaccuracies.
First, the Coca-Cola memo notes:
In compliance with the law, soft drinks are never sold in
the dining area of the school during the designated meal
periods. Hence, they do not directly compete with items in
the ``a al carte'' lunch line or on the school menu.
That is not true. Soft drink sales can compete with lunches since
they can be sold right outside the cafeteria in vending machines or
sold before lunch in the cafeteria.
Second, the memo notes that:
Soft drinks can only be sold in schools provided that the
revenue derived from the sales be used to fund school
activities, which otherwise would not be funded.
That is not true. Under current Federal law soft drinks can be sold
whether or not the revenue is used to fund school activities.
Third, the memo notes that:
Allowing the sale of competitive foods on campus during
non-lunch hours reduces the likelihood that students will
leave campus to purchase such products. This is a serious
safety issue which greatly concerns school administrators and
parents.
The argument that selling sodas in vending machines will solve a
``serious safety issue'' represents a major overstatement.
Fourth, the memo notes that soft drinks are ``USDA-approved
competitive foods.''
That is not true. USDA regulations list soda drinks as competitive
foods of minimal nutritional value and thus can not be approved for
sale in the cafeteria during lunch service.
At one time, Mr. President, somebody wanted to list ketchup as a
vegetable in our school lunch program. Now it appears that Coke wants
to list Coca-Cola as a nutritious beverage. Both ideas are total
baloney, and we all know that.
My bill leaves the decision of whether to sell soft drinks up to
school service authorities and education departments. They ought to
decide, not a corporate giant in Atlanta. As a Vermonter, I want my
Vermont schools to be making this decision, not some high-priced
lobbyist working out of a multi-billion-dollar corporation.
Coke claims that they have the ``understanding'' of eight Senators on
the Agriculture Committee. I find that hard to believe--not only that
they do not support this legislation, but nobody has come up and said
they want to put Coke ahead of children.
I do not know why Coca-Cola is so afraid. If they would check their
facts and get their information correct, they would understand that my
bill makes it clear that in the interest of child nutrition, schools--
not the Federal Government--are entrusted with the authority to choose
or to ban the sale of soft drinks and junk foods from vending machines
during school hours.
They should not try to bully these individual school boards,
individual educational institutions.
Coca-Cola is a corporate giant. It is their job to sell soda and make
money, not to improve the health of children. Their fancy commercials
and big-time advertising raked in profits of $2.1 billion last year
alone. Our job as U.S. Senators, when we are developing a nutrition
bill, is to protect children. We should be protecting children, not an
individual corporation.
My bill clarifies schools' authority to promote healthy eating
choices for children. No company should be dictating to schools that
they have to sell soda and junk food as though it is a nutritional
food. It is not.
I think child health is the issue. Coca-Cola apparently thinks money
is the issue. The Coca Cola Co. made $2.1 billion last year; I guess
that was not enough. I hope in this case it is not the corporate giant
that wins out, but that the children of America win out. Their health
is of much greater value to us than selling a few more cans of Coca-
Cola.
I ask unanimous consent that the letters and memos sent out by the
Coca Cola Co., which I consider out and out misstatements of fact, be
printed in the Record at the end of my statement.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Coca-Cola Co.,
Atlanta, GA, February 28, 1994.
Dear Ms. ------ ------: We are writing to ask for your help
regarding the possibility of further government restriction
on the sale of soft drinks in schools. There is currently a
new piece of legislature called ``The Better Nutrition &
Health for Children Act'' that has been introduced by the
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee to the Senate.
This act is intended to help states ban ``competitive foods''
at a stricter level than federal law currently requires.
We believe that current law already provides states and
local boards with the authority to either allow or prohibit
competitive foods and that this act (if it is passed) will
serve to further restrict the sale of soft drinks in school.
This will obviously, reduce the much needed revenues to
schools that are generated from the sale of soft drinks. We
believe that the Senate needs to better understand the impact
that this act could have on these revenues.
If you agree with us, we are asking you to send a letter to
Senator Leahy (Chairman of the ANF committee), as well as to
your senators, requesting that they not pursue this Act. We
have attached a sample letter to help you as well as a list
of senators (and addresses) who serve on the Agriculture,
Nutrition and Forestry Committee. We've also attached a
summary of this Act and our concerns about it to give you
further background.
Your letters are needed immediately (as well as letters
from other administrators, teachers or coaches who are
willing to write), since this legislation is under
consideration now. If you are willing to write, please send a
copy to me so that we can keep track of the response from the
education community.
Best regards,
Bonnie J. Pruett.
Attachment.
February 1, 1994.
Hon. ________,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator ______: As the Senate Agriculture Committee
prepares to consider legislation reauthorizing child
nutrition programs, which are paramount to the proper
learning and development of the nation's school children, I
wanted to let you know about a particular provision of a bill
pending before the Senate which causes us great concern.
As I understand it, Section 208 of The Better Nutrition and
Health for Children Act (S. 1614) would urge states to ban
the sale of ``competitive'' foods in schools. These vended
products are sold on campus, but not at the same time or
place as school lunches and breakfasts. They provide a
tremendous source of revenue used for extra-curricular
activities. Were it not for the fact that this revenue
augments our budgets, many of the programs outside the normal
classroom atmosphere would not be possible. These programs
allow students to explore their creativities, provide much
needed fitness, teach good sportsmanship, and instill the
values of teamwork and dedication.
School systems are well aware they have the authority to
decide whether or not to allow the sale of competitive foods
on campus. It is, and should remain, a local decision made by
those most familiar with the school's needs. It seems both
unnecessary and potentially confusing for the Federal
government to go beyond current law and possibly misdirect
schools in this regard.
In these days of financially strapped states and
communities, please don't send another edict from Washington
that has the potential to further challenge our resources. I
urge you to support efforts to drop Section 208 from S. 1614.
Sincerely,
____
Coca-Cola Memorandum,
February 24, 1994.
To: Mr. Earl T. Leonard, Jr.
From: Bryan D. Anderson.
Subject: School lunch.
As you know, we are closely monitoring the Better Nutrition
and Health for Children Act (S. 1614) introduced by Senator
Leahy. The following is a review of this issue.
background
Current Federal regulation prohibits the sale of
``competitive'' foods at the same time and place of a
Federally-funded school lunch or school breakfast program. In
addition, states and local schools have the authority to
exceed the Federal rule and further restrict or prohibit the
sale of competitive foods on school property.
current proposal
Senator Leahy (D-VT) has introduced legislation, S. 1614,
that would reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act. S. 1614
contains a provision (Section 208) titled, ``Clarification of
Authority to Ban Junk Foods.'' This section would direct the
USDA to encourage states to exceed Federal authority by
banning competitive foods from the schools and even provides
model language for states' use in taking such action.
(Section 208 language does not appear in House legislation.)
arguments
There is no need for this new provision. Current law
already provides states and local school boards the authority
to allow or prohibit the sale of competitive foods, in fact,
eight states already have. (See attached.)
Local school authorities know best what is appropriate for
their students. There is no evidence they are ignorant of
their authority over competitive foods, nor any evidence that
there decisions, have in any way, negatively impacted the
school lunch program.
In compliance with the law, soft drinks are never sold in
the dining area of the school during the designated meal
periods. Hence, they do not directly compete with items in
the ``a la carte'' lunch line or on the school menu.
USDA-approved ``competitive foods,'' such as soft drinks,
can only be sold in schools provided that the revenue derived
from the sales be used to fund school activities, which
otherwise would not be funded. These include band uniforms,
sports team uniforms, school yearbooks, etc. In this age of
financially strapped school districts, that face revenue
shortages and then eliminate extra curricular activities as a
result, the Federal government should not issue ultimatums
from Washington which only worsen the situation.
Allowing the sale of competitive foods on campus during
non-lunch hours reduces the likelihood that students will
leave campus to purchase such products. This is a serious
safety issue which greatly concerns school administrators and
parents.
objective
Section 208, titled ``Clarification of Authority to Ban
Junk Foods'' should be dropped in its entirety from S. 1615.
Action--We have met with eight Senate offices names deleted
on this issue, and they have been understanding of our
concerns with Section 208. We are working on getting letters
supporting our position from Secondary School principals from
as many committee member states as we can. The Association of
Secondary School Principals is helping us with the letters as
well as providing data to validate our argument that the
revenue derived from the sale of soft drinks is crucial to
the funding of extra curricular activities.
There is a hearing on this issue on Tuesday, March 1, and
mark up is not expected until spring.
____________________