Black Market Candy in Schools

[annecros]

It seems that some clever young entrepreneurs in California have managed to circumvent the school systems prohibition on candy on campus:

Clcik for story "Students Turn Profits from Candy Sales"

From the article:

Schools have been individually banning junk-food sales for years, and enforcement was increased in 2005 when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger passed legislation to combat childhood obesity, according to the office of the governor.

Since then, schools have slowly adjusted by offering more healthy alternatives, such as baked chips and granola bars.

But Nason said that he sees just as much candy and soda as ever, because students still bring it from home — for lunch, and to turn a profit.

“I think it’s original purpose was pretty good, but it doesn’t seem to be making that big of a difference,” said teacher Rolayne Allen of the junk-food ban.

My initial reaction was "Same as it ever was" - after all, I was a child of the 70's and 80's who got away with much more than she should have.

So what's the solution? Making a food item forbidden just seems to make it more desirable to the human animal, and not just to kids.

[JeanneCake]

What problem are they trying to solve? And is it something they can even begin to address at school? After all, they have one (maybe two if breakfast is offered) meal and limited time for snacking. Do the powers that be really think they can make a difference by banning junk food in school? What'll they try to do next, search the lunch bags and boxes upon entry?

And where is the $ coming from for the contraband? Are kids spending their lunch $ on candy instead of the meal? That's when the lunch card system makes a tremendous difference. Our school district did that this year, and it works very well. No more forgotten lunch money - you load the card (a virtual card to be honest with you) and you can choose to limit the choices your child makes as he/she goes through the lunch line and it helps. Every little bit helps. The school is now offering much more freshly prepared items, and a salad bar every day. Huge difference from the frozen chicken nuggets and fish sticks that were a staple on the school lunch menu.

We keep saying we want to combat childhood obesity, but the problem stems from so many sources: lack of exercise (limited PE classes, no afterschool activities perhaps?), lack of healthy choices in foods (prepared foods are easier to get on the table and easier to get a kid to eat if that's all they're used to because of a parent's working schedule or limited resources), filling up on juices and soda and fast food from the kid-friendly restaurants like McDonalds, BK, Wendy's , etc..

Like annecros says, once you make something forbidden, it becomes much more desireable than it was before. Banned books, food, wine... suddenly the allure of not being able to have it when you want it makes it more glamourous.

[Fat Guy]

The black market for candy, as described in the article, illustrates two principles that those who seek to regulate what we put in our mouths would do well to bear in mind:

1. "Forbidden fruit." The principle that something forbidden becomes more desirable is well established in the social sciences. The phenomenon spins off into related territories as well. For example, there's plenty of evidence that alcoholism is less of a problem in cultures where young people are introduced to alcoholic beverages at the family table.

2. "Unintended consequences." Often, absolutist rules -- well-intended though they may be -- have unintended consequences that actually worsen the problem the rules were meant to address. People are complex animals, especially when they're in group settings. Everybody knows it's foolish to think the solution to childhood obesity (there's a whole 'nother discussion to be had on whether the problem is as serious as a lot of folks make it out to be, as well as a discussion about whether a "solution" is possible or even desirable) is banning certain foods in school cafeterias. But it may be just as foolish to think such bans will help even a little bit.

[annecros]

And where is the $ coming from for the contraband? 

←

This is a great point, and one that immediately came to mind when reading the article, although you expressed it better than I did.

My kids had much more cash in hand than I did. When hubby and I raised children, we had an elaborate scheme of cash incentives that rewarded good grades (A "C" netted nothing, an "A" got ya 5 bucks, an "F" would cost ya 5 bucks) in order to reinforce good behavior. Straight "A's" earned you a $200 bonus. There was also an allowance because they were expected to do a measurable amount of chores each week, including washing dishes and cleaning rooms, in order to "earn" the allowance. It was theirs to spend as they wished, and any gifts for birthday or Christmas belonged to them to spend as they wished, no questions asked.

It was very effective. Incentive and empowerment.

Now, if one of them purchased marked down "Kidde Mix" from the Halloween bin two weeks later, and sold the Blow Pops for a quarter a piece in a hot market, how could I criticize?

Smart. I would never consider it a contributor to childhood obesity. Just would think that the kid was learning about supply and demand in a very personal way.

They had way more expendable income than I had. I suspect that other's coming along may have more.