[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.

                          ____________________