by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
October 26, 2004
Last week the Ontario government instituted a ban on junk food in the province’s elementary schools. Gone are the chocolate bars and chips; popcorn and carrot sticks are in.
It is difficult to argue against the ban, even when the source is considered. The present Liberal government in Ontario is not really up to the challenge of governing. Whenever they are faced with a problem, their solution is always to take the easy way out. When they found out (or pretended to find out) that the deficit that they were left with was larger than first thought, the Liberals took the easy way out--they raised taxes. as everyone knows, even a small child who is capable of saying, "more, more!" is capable of instituting a tax increase. It is much harder to reduce expenditures and live within their means than it is to raise taxes. In the same vein, when an activity such as pit bull ownership is found to be dangerous, it is so much easier to simply ban the activity than it is to undertake the more difficult task of regulation.
So it is for this reason that it is somewhat disheartening to see Gerard Kennedy call for a ban on junk food in elementary schools. Nonetheless this particular ban might have merit. Voluntary compliance with nutritional guidelines for food in school was tried first and was unsuccessful, leaving the ban as the only option.
a good way to judge whether or not junk food should have been banned is to see what opponents of the ban are saying. Banning a legal activity should not be done lightly, or for expedience, and if the arguments that are raised by opponents hold up, the junk food ban should not have been put in place.
Frank Klees, former leadership candidate and PC critic criticized the Minister for wanting to become the daddy of Ontario’s children. Klees thinks that decisions on what children eat should be left to parents and the local school boards.
as noble as Klees’ thoughts might be, they just don’t cut it. although raising children should be the responsibility of parents and not the state, the reality is that parents cannot control what their children eat when they are in school and not within their control. Even if the parents teach their children about proper nutrition, we’re talking about elementary school kids. Kids will be kids and all the right parenting in the world will not prevent them from grabbing a bag of chips if they have an opportunity.
as for leaving the decision on what kids will eat with the local school boards, those boards are nothing more than another level of government. If children are going to be regulated by a government as to what they can and cannot eat, does it really make a difference what level of government does the regulating? and can the argument really be made that junk food is bad in Toronto but okay in Rainy River? Probably not. Perhaps we should take it all the way and let the federal government regulate what children can eat. It would be a good opportunity for Paul Martin to practice his asymmetrical federalism and make an exception that allows Quebec kids to eat poutine.
and as far as school boards controlling what the children eat, let’s not forget those immortal words of Mark Twain who said, "In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made School Boards." If junk food should be banned, saying that another level of government should do the banning is merely splitting hairs.
The real downside to the ban is the so-called slippery slope. The Minister of Education barely had time to take a breath after his announcement when Cathy Dandy, head of the Toronto Parents Network, called for the ban to be extended to secondary schools. Banning junk food in high schools is a different matter. Kids are old enough to go out on their own. If their school is in a built up area they can always go to a convenience store or a fast food restaurant and get their fix of junk food. and besides learning the 3Rs (racism, reproduction and recycling) these kids are supposed to be learning to become responsible adults. The ban would be government-coddling that would not control what secondary school students eat during or right after school.
as long as Gerard Kennedy can resist racing down the slippery slope, he should receive credit for imposing the elementary school ban.