Now, the schools just need to get busy with eliminating - or at least dramatically reducing - soda pop machines. Even beyond the health risks associated with sugary drinks being peddled in schools, the issue I take is with the predatory marketing to children.

The "Big Cola" companies have often moved into schools under the guise of subsidizing certain underfunded programs or making available materials that, without external funding, might not be available to the students. But once they've got their machines strategically plopped into the school, the real agenda comes out to play.

"Big Cola" is quick to point out that while sales in schools account for about $700 million in US soft-drink sales, that's less than 1 percent total revenue for the largest soda companies, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo & Cadbury. But the brand placement - the use of those school vending machines to establish a veritable dependancy that carries over into kids' homes where the real profits are made.

Back in May, "Big Cola" announced a voluntary school policy (brokered by the Clinton Foundation & the American Heart Association) to pull all sugary sodas from schools. Under the agreement, high schools will still be able to purchase drinks such as diet & unsweetened teas, diet sodas, sports drinks, flavored water, and low-calorie sports drinks for resale to students.

The plan's goal is to stop soda sales at 75% of public schools by the 2008-2009 school year, and at all schools in the following year. But doesn't that seems like a fairly protracted phase-in period considering the already nearly crisis-level impact that obesity is having on children? And given that this is a voluntary plan, it’s basically unenforceable, with no accountability. It smacks mostly of a PR spin-job to return a bit more luster to "Big Cola's" image. And what of those subsidies from "Big Cola" that may be at risk? Who's going to make up the difference in funding? Although they might not make the direct connection mentally, I'll bet that most taxpayers would probably rather that their children remain cola junkies that have to face a tax hike.

Let's also not forget that the ABA boldly rolled out a similar policy back in August '05 that was never even implemented...

Rob,

It is hard, oftentimes, to find the line between PR moves and true change.

I'd say the same thing has happened with the Microsoft monopoly "settlement," in which Microsoft's penance involves putting its OS in thousands of schools—creating familiarity and brand loyalty among tons of future computer users and buyers.

Instead of a punishment, it's a corporate dream come true.

The positive I can give to the Clinton/American Heart Assn–brokered agreement is it raises awareness among parents and schools that, hey, maybe the current situation is untenable.

Change will really happen when more parents stand up and demand it—through our purchasing patterns, local, state and federal voting, and involvement in our kids' school lives.

I'm among those few taxpayers who *would* pay a little more to feed our kids better.

- L