Anne Tolley’s removal of the ban on schools selling junk food is plainly an ideological political statement, because there’s no sense in it. If you want to change behaviour you don’t send mixed messages. As a science teacher I complained about the lack of nutritious food at the tuck shop which must have significantly weakened the effectiveness of lessons on nutrition. The hidden curriculum was ‘Ignore your lessons. Join the real world’.
I noticed that girls who took home economics (as it was then called) were generally in the less academic cohort. Although they were taught to prepare healthy meals such as salads, many of these girls bought junk food at the tuck shop, and showed early signs of obesity. In contrast a high proportion of girls in academic classes ate healthy lunches and looked as if they did.
When microwaves appeared on the market, it was the low stream classes whose homes had them first. Some families who seek parcels from food banks have a costly, unnecessary SUV. It is undeniable that there are people who cannot manage money. Sometimes there is one child like this whose siblings are all successful, so the problem is not always a defective family culture. We are a genetically diverse species. Historians know the great composer Mozart was well paid, yet he died a pauper. My own view is that such people need to be ‘nannied’ over their spending. They are vulnerable to loan sharks and plausible salesmen. An immense social cost is the result.
Those who will be most affected by the Tolley decision will be the children at low decile schools where desperate principals and boards are more likely than wealthier communities to succumb to the temptation to sell junk food to raise money.
Taxpayers are subsidizing the purveyors of junk food. Obese people are more accident prone, less active and energetic, and therefore less productive. They are more likely to be victims of diabetes and osteoporosis. Medical researchers put the future cost of these impending epidemics at billions of dollars. It makes economic sense to charge for this. I would impose a 1000% tax on sugar including imported confectionary and baking. The revenue would go to tax rebates for fresh fruit and vegetable retailers which would reduce shop prices and increase demand.. Our market gardeners and orchardists would benefit. So would our current account, as a higher proportion of fresh food is grown locally than sugar which is all imported.
- written by Allen Cookson, Oxford
Please note that this article first appeared in the February issue of ‘Canterbury Farming’.