When I formed the Arizona Fitness & Nutrition Coalition, I thought I could help create policy that would increase fitness and nutrition programming. Unfortunately, I have spent my entire time fighting public policy that purports to support fitness and nutrition programming, but really does nothing to actually educate students.

This is just the case with Rep. Mark Anderson’s H2544. The mandates of H2544, that Arizona schools participate in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and comply with federal guidelines for on-campus vending, are unnecessary. Nearly all Arizona schools (1,379) already participate in the National School Lunch Program and all of those schools already MUST comply with federal guidelines. As for the schools that do not participate, they actually have very real financial concerns that have kept them from embracing the programs.

The school nutritionists tow the line for the NSLP. They are the force behind the Department of Education’s school nutrition policy, and supporters of Mr. Anderson’s bill. They have a vested interest in the health of children, and work to ensure students eat healthy, balanced meals. Unfortunately, the NSLP does not teach lifelong healthy living. Thus, despite its usefulness as a feeding program, the NSLP is not the program we need to invest in as a means of educating our children about healthy living.

As for the vending, the school nutritionists have suggested the need to change vending lies with the number of soft drinks students consume. Reality is the minimal soft drink consumption on school campuses can’t take credit for anything more than ensuring students spend their money at school rather than the store across the street. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, only 9 per cent of student consumption of soft drinks is on school campuses. That’s an average of one soft drink per student every two weeks.

Regardless, school vending encompasses much more than soft drinks, and changes to food vending must fall in line with county laws that regulate food handling, which pretty much eliminates the ability of student stores and vending machines to sell fruits and many other nutritious snacks.

Of course, there are those who think we should eliminate all vending on school campuses. Unfortunately, that is not financially possible for the schools that rely on vending revenue as the primary source of funding for student activities that build self-confidence, leadership and responsibility in our students, including clubs, student council, assemblies, award ceremonies, field trips, music, choir, band, athletics, dances, yearbooks, and much more. Many schools also use the funds for very necessary items such as computers, copier paper, test supplies, textbooks, diplomas and even insurance. In lieu of paying activity fees, many parents would rather their children purchase snacks on school campus than at the convenience store. Purchasing snacks on campus is also much safer than driving elsewhere during the lunch hour.

Schools Superintendent Tom Horne and Mr. Anderson had a joint press conference on Feb. 1 touting a pilot program that they say proves that vending sales can be equally as profitable with tightened restrictions on products. While the pilot program did an excellent job of creating change at the local level by instituting cafeteria food tastings at one school and creating a physical activity program at another school, the baseline data on vending is not sufficient to support the creation of a statewide mandate. Results released by Mr. Horne provided gross vending revenues, not profits. But we all know that healthier products cost more, have less of a shelf life and a smaller profit margin.

Further reason to avoid using the pilot as the basis for passing statewide legislation is the program’s limited reach. The pilot program included eight schools — Arizona has 1,800 schools. None of the schools fit the typical high school scenario of open campus, variety of vended products and heavy reliance on vending revenue to fund student activities. And all of the schools received grant money to institute their changes, making the risk relatively low.

Mr. Horne has the opportunity to provide true community leadership by learning from the success of the pilot program and using that information to help other schools achieve similar successes.

If Mr. Anderson wants to impact the health of our students, he should stick to the job of funding schools, not running schools. Our schools clearly need money for physical activity and nutrition programs. Unfortunately Mr. Anderson has introduced another useless health bill, H2514, which creates mandatory physical education for Arizona schools but doesn’t fund it. —

Stephanie Rimmer is founder and lobbyist for the Arizona Fitness & Nutrition Coalition, a grassroots lobbying group that supports the creation of fitness and nutrition programs in Arizona schools. The Coalition is endorsed by the Arizona Coaches Association, the Arizona Beverage Association (AzBA) and the Arizona Automated Merchandising Council (AAMC). Both the AAMC and AzBa have provided the Coalition with limited financial support. Ms. Rimmer can be reached at srimmer@cox.net.