DATE: July 4, 2003
TO: Individual Members of the Seattle School Board
FROM: Prof. John F. Banzhaf III, George Washington University Law School
RE: Coca-Cola Itself Has Renounced Exclusive Contracts With Schools
I write because Members of the Seattle School Board may not have been told
that Coca-Cola itself has renounced exactly the type of exclusive contract
which the Board is being asked to approve - one which encourages students
to drink sugary soft drinks in return for a kickback to the school, and one
which I have warned School Board Members might lead to law suits and individual
legal liability if renewed. http://banzhaf.net/docs/seattleltrs.html
Below are a few brief excerpts from numerous newspaper articles announcing
this new policy by Coca-Cola. I hope that School Board Members will
take just a few minutes to read what they have to say, and then decline to
renew just such a contract.
For example, here is part of what the Wall Street Journal reported
on 3/14/01: “The company also said it will work to lessen its commercial presence
in schools and support nonexclusive contracts with schools. . . .
The moves by the beverage maker come as Congress is considering imposing limits
on the sale of soft drinks in schools in response to critics of commercialism
in schools and organizations questioning the nutritional value of soft drinks
for young people.”
>From the News and Observer (Raleigh, NC) on 3/27/01: “An image
as an exploiter of school children wouldn't sell much sweet fizzy water,
so Coca-Cola recently pulled the plug on aggressive marketing of its products
through exclusive contracts with schools. For kids' sake, the public can only
hope that Coke's announcement represents the beginning of a full retreat.
Selling fewer soft drinks in schools seems the only reasonable response to
the medical Journal Lancet's study of childhood obesity, published last
month. Each additional soft drink that kids consume every day increases the
risk of obesity by 60 percent, no matter how much food they eat or exercise
they get, researchers found. And fat leads to diabetes, heart disease, cancer
and arthritis later in life.”
Here’s another from the Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee)
from 3/25/01: “As part of new national policy, Coca-Cola will ask its independent
bottlers to quit fighting for exclusive contracts to put the company's vending
machines in schools. The company sounded the retreat after mounting public
pressure to do so. Perhaps a government report linking consumption of soft
drinks to increasing rates of obesity and diabetes in children forced
the company's hand, but the decision is welcome nevertheless. . . .
On the one hand, you have teachers diligently instructing their students
in the basics of sound nutrition, which does not include the consumption
of soft drinks or other convenience and fast foods. On the other hand, a
machine dispensing a product the government says is sometimes detrimental
to student health sits just outside the classroom door. Such tacit approval
of soft drinks is bound to disconcert students, and it also demeans and needlessly
commercializes the education system.
>From the Modesto Bee (California) 3/23/01: “It isn't hard to
understand why Coca-Cola Co. opted for the white flag. Under pressure
from the American Dental Association, the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
the Association of School Food Service directors, many of the country's
newspaper editorial boards and some members of Congress and state legislatures,
the maker of the nation's top-selling soft drink has asked its bottlers to
stop seeking "exclusive pouring contracts" with school districts. What once
had seemed a sound strategy for building brand loyalty among young consumers
had become a public relations headache, with Coke and its rival, Pepsi, cast
as the enablers of cavities, teen-age obesity and the overcommercialization
of American schools.”
>From the Orlando Sentinel Tribune,3/21/01: “Coca-Cola Co., feeling
the pressure from critics, wants to phase out its exclusive agreements with
local school systems throughout the country. . . . But at what price?
Students are a captive audience. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to take
advantage of their status by bombarding them with commercials at school. In
addition, most of Coca-Cola's popular products have little, if any, nutritional
value. How does the exclusive contract jibe with the school system's goal
of promoting healthy minds and bodies? How can schools offer health classes
yet promote the use of products that have no health benefit? Kids are smarter
than people think. They can spot such inconsistencies and wonder why messages
and actions don't agree.”
Here’s the San Francisco Chronicle 3/19/01:”COCA-COLA has sensibly
called retreat in the cola wars sweeping many school districts. The fight
pitted nutrition, moderation and health against heavy marketing and big bucks
from soda makers. The soft-drink maker will urge its independent bottlers
not to seek exclusive contracts for the bright red vending machines in schools.
The cave-in came after broad criticism -- including a January report from
the Agriculture Department -- that sodas contribute to child obesity and diabetes.
What's the sense in teaching a sound diet when a Coke machine or snack machine
is sitting in the hallway? The Bay Area has generally seen the light in this
fight. Oakland killed a deal with Pepsi to sell its soda in schools, and
San Francisco has no plans for an exclusive soft-drink contract. Consider
this sugar-laden statistic: 74 percent of boys and 65 percent of girls
have at least a soda a day, according to a federal study.”