Advertising in School Unethical & Corrupts Learning Process While Promoting Corporate Agenda

School should be an ad-free zone for our children. Letting fast food companies advertise in schools is unethical and will destroy the integrity of the educational system by giving companies the ability to corrupt the learning process and promote their corporate agenda. We should not under any circumstances allow fast food advertising into our schools. Advertising would turn schools from a neutral place of learning into a 6 hour, ad filled, biased cage which kids are unable to escape from. Students and teachers would become trapped in the corporate web if allowed into our schools.

School is supposed to be an educational environment. A place where a child goes to focus on learning. We teach them that it is a safe place where you are taught to trust what you are told. We tell them to listen to the teachers, principals, guidance counselors and coaches. We let them know these people have your best interest at heart. They are put on somewhat the same level as parents in many ways. School is the first place your parents ever leave you at. They drop you off in nursery school and tell you to listen to what your teachers tell you. That implies a level of trust. Your parents trust the school with your welfare. School plays such a major role in a childs development. Your experiences and what you learn there shape your future. You are taught that school is where you learn the truth about all subjects in life. You learn everything from biology to basketball; Spanish to sexual education;. So if you saw a McDonald's or Burger King ad school, you would believe whatever that ad is selling or saying must be right. Ads found in school make it seem like the school is promoting the product. It can be so powerful because it is being shopped to a captive audience that has been asked to trust what the teacher says and does. Steven Kaplan, president of Sampling Corporation of America says, “There is an implied endorsement from a trusted institution” You're taught whatever you read in your textbook is fact. So then whatever you read on the school wall must be fact too. When you see the, “MADD” and “Just Say No to Drugs “ posters you know that getting high and drunk driving are bad for you. You see the posters for different colleges and know that you should go to one order to have a good future. That would lead you to believe what you see on school walls. So when you see the ad for the Whopper and Big Mac then surely they are good for you. Your school wouldn't steer you wrong. That's what you've been told your whole life. If we advertise these products in school then we are sending the message that they are good for you. That would be blurring the line between fact and propaganda. To allow fast food advertising would contradict the lessons being taught to kids. They're taught fast food like hamburgers, fries and soda are unhealthy and should only be consumed in moderation, if at all. By marketing such products in school, it's highly possible that students will get the wrong idea that they're okay after all. We can't be sending mixed signals to developing kids, otherwise we lose our credibility. It’s hard enough to get the children to learn what we’ve been teaching them for decades, now we throw a curve-ball at them. Materials in school should have a legitimate educational purpose, not a commercial motive. “It's a misuse of the environmentt of the school,” says, Jeffrey Arnett,an associatee professor at the University of Maryland. “Schools should not be endorsing products, they are powerful institutions.” Letting fast food advertising into school walls would be a perversion of education.

Fast food companies have been trying to get access to advertising in schools for decades. School is the perfect stage to promote their products because it guarantees them a captive audience for six to seven hours a day. For the companies, kids are a lucrative market. There are over 45 million children in school. Although we might not think of children as consumers, they do have great economic clout. Today's elementary-age children have tremendous spending power; around 15 billion per year, 11 billion of which they spend on a wide variety of products from food, beverages, and clothes to toys and games. Teenagers spend 57 billion of their own money yearly. In addition they influence purchases of over 200 billion, according to James McNeal, a Texas A&M University professor. An entire industry has sprung up that's devoted solely to helping companies get their products in schools and to the kids. Fast food companies want to be able to get their views and product into children’s minds while they are vulnerable in order to build the cherished brand loyalty that lasts for a lifetime They donate money and supplies to the schools but they are not doing it for nothing. These sponsored educational materials serve their purpose; getting their message to school kids. Alex Molnar writes, “ Private profit is their motive behind funding for public education.” If they really wanted to be charitable they could just donate anonymously and unconditionally. Usually these educational materials come with a contract that
allows their corporate name, logo and message to be displayed. Sometimes even having their corporate mascot appear at certain sponsored events. A contract with the school districts is just that, a business arrangement. It really only benefits the two parties making the contract, the school district and the company, not the kids. The kids get caught in crossfire between the district balancing their budget and the company pushing their burger. With any advertisement or sponsorship comes the sponsors influence and point of view. The fast food companies will be influencing the way our children view food and any other view the fast food companies want to portray in their ads. Dee Gill, from The Houston Chronicle writes, “ Corporate sponsors have offered up millions of dollars in equipment from classroom materials to computers—that help keep schools’ cost down. School boards don’t have to cut budgets, parents don’t have to pay more taxes and teachers don’t have to beg to get these much-needed items as often when corporations help. But the escalating involvement of corporations in schools has some educational experts worried. Everyone wins except the child who is subjected to the barrage of
propaganda, argues Arnold Fege, director of government relations for the Washington based National Parent-Teacher association. Schools are supposed to be free marketplaces of ideas, Fege says. Corporations have vested interests in promoting their own products or their own point of view. Allowing a corporation to direct the learning process—through filmstrips, curriculum guides or whatever they provide—allows it to further its own agenda through vulnerable children, he says. Even the
educational films that so many companies provide for schools can be dangerous propaganda he says. He asks the questions: Do parents want their kids to learn about the environment from oil companies? Do they want children to learn nutrition from fast food vendors? In such cases, he says, those sponsors have reasons to portray the facts with a slant favorable to their industries. ‘If they really (corporations) really wanted to further education, they’d pay for it.’ He says. ‘How could you justify distracting kids with this garbage if you were really concerned about educating them better? ‘ The advertising companies that have spawned from the entrance of advertising into the school market are not shy in stating their intended purpose. One such company, Lifetime Learning Systems, which has worked with McDonald's, bills itself as, “the nation's recognized leader in the creation and dissemination of corporate-sponsored educational materials.” The promotional intent of the company's service is quite evident in its own literature: “School is the ideal time to influence attitudes, build long-term loyalties, introduce new products, test market, promote sampling and trial usage and above all, to generate immediate sales.” Does this sound like a company that has our kids interest at heart? Sounds more like someone who is preying on most school districts need for supplies and contributions to get their foot in the door and their hooks in our kids. Worse than that, the companies they represent want to prey on our childrens naivety and immaturity in order to make money.

In conclusion, having fast food advertising in our schools does a disservice to our children. They are going to school to be educated, not sold things. Senator Patrick Leahy says, “It's our responsibility to make it clear that schools are here to serve children, not commercial interest.” We have to maintain the
integrity of our schools and credibility of our teachers if we want our children to continue to learn. Teachers should not be influenced by corporate agenda when teaching. The single goal should be whats best for the children. Children should be able to focus on learning without being inundated by advertisements. Teachers and administrators should set the agenda not outside commercial interests. We trust our school officials and teachers to be surrogates for our children while in school, not pimps, prostituting our children to the fast food nation for rulers and computers.

" No In-School Advertising " Body Paragraphs & outline

School is supposed to be an educational environment. The one place a child can go and focus on learning and his/her future. We even teach them that it is a safe place where you can trust what you are told. In fact we tell them to listen to the teachers, principals, guidance counselors and coaches. That these people have your best interest at heart. Sometimes that they only come second to your parents some ways. I mean your parents have trusted them with your well being since you were first dropped off at nursery school. In the past the school even had the right to use corporal punishment. Your parents tell you that school plays a major part in your future. What you learn there and how you use it is a determining factor in the quality of life you will have as you grow up. With all that told to you, if you saw a McDonalds or Burger king ad in your school, then you would believe that whatever the ad is selling or saying must be right. We are told only true things are taught in school. Whatever is in your textbook is fact. So whatever is on the school wall must be fact too. They have the “Just Say No to Drugs “posters and you’re told drugs are bad. You pledge allegiance to the flag, and the flag is good because your country is good, right? “MADD “posters are there to tell you that drunk driving is deadly wrong. Posters telling you to go to college because college is important to your future. So if all the things that you see at school are supposed to be good and have your best interest at heart, then that Big Mac must be good for you. That Whopper must be healthy for you just like, “The Presidents Challenge” you take every year in gym class, because it’s there like the presidents poster is. By having these companies in our schools we are sending the message they are good and healthy products. Otherwise why would they be in schools where all the other things we are taught to learn are. How we can send the message that even though it’s in your school, put there by your school, teachers and principals, that it might not be right when these are the same people we are taught for 17 years are to be listened to and respected. It’s hard enough to get the children to learn what we’ve been teaching them for decades, now we want to throw a curveball at them. We take away the credibility and integrity of the institution by letting fast food advertisers in.

The fast food companies want in the schools so that they can push their views and product into children’s minds while they are vulnerable. They may donate money and supplies to the schools but they are not doing it for nothing. If they really wanted to be charitable they would do just that and donate unconditionally. A contract with the school districts is just that, a business arrangement. It really only benefits the two parties making the contract, the school district and the company, not the kids. The kids get caught in crossfire between the district balancing their budget and the company pushing their burger. With any advertisement or sponsorship comes the sponsors influence and point of view. The fast food companies will be influencing the way our children view food and any other view the fast food companies want to portray in their ads. Dee Gill, from The Houston Chronicle writes, “ Corporate sponsors have offered up millions of dollars in equipment—everything from classroom materials to computers—that help keep schools’ cost down. School boards don’t have to cut budgets, parents don’t have to pay more taxes and teachers don’t have to beg to get these much-needed items as often when corporations help. But the escalating involvement of corporations in schools has some educational experts worried. Everyone wins except the child who is subjected to the barrage of propaganda, argues Arnold Fege, director of government relations for the Washington based National Parent-Teacher association. Schools are supposed to be free marketplaces of ideas, Fege says. Corporations have vested interests in promoting their own products or their own point of view. Allowing a corporation to direct the learning process—through filmstrips, curriculum guides or whatever they provide—allows it to further its own agenda through vulnerable children, he says. Even the educational films that so many companies provide for schools can be dangerous propaganda he says. He asks the questions: Do parents want their kids to learn about the environment from oil companies? Do they want children to learn nutrition from fast food vendors? In such cases, he says, those sponsors have reasons to portray the facts with a slant favorable to their industries. ‘If they (corporations) really wanted to further education, they’d pay for it.’ He says. ‘How could you justify distracting kids with this garbage if you were really concerned about educating them better? ‘

MLA Annotated Bibliography on " Farming Cattle & Livestock "

Livestock Farms May Increase Asthma Risk." Newswire. UPI. 21 June 2006. Web

A study done in Iowa on the effects of large-scale livestock farms and CAFO’s (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) on children specifically with asthma. Study shows that inflammatory substances are released from CAFO’s and cause health damage to workers and nearby communities. Researchers studied two elementary schools, one near a CAFO and one farther away. Study found that percentage for asthma doubled at school closer than school farther away.


USA. Missouri Environmental Compliance. Concentrated Animal Feeding Bill Passes. By
Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafy, and Davis. M. Lee Smith & Printers, 1996. Print.

A Missouri bill from the Department of Natural Resources outlining the rules and laws Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations must abide by. Rules defining the amount of space needed compared to the amount of animals being housed. How record keeping and inspections are to be handled. The fund that must be created by each Operation.


Weiss, Rick. "FDA Is Set To Approve Milk, Meat From Clones." Newswire. TechNews. 17 Oct. 2006. Web.

An article on the ongoing battle to get FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval on selling food products from genetically cloned animals. Studies showing the health and safety comparisons of the cloned animals compared to normal ones. Debate on whether or not the FDA should take into consideration any ethical concerns of cloned meat. The International Dairy Foods Association role in FDA action concerning the approval of sales and labeling of cloned animal products for public consumption.


Allen, Arthur. "As Food Production and Preparation Moves Farther Afield, Tainted Items Become Hard to Avoid." The Washington Post 8 Dec. 2009, Health sec.: HE01. Print

An article on food –borne diseases becoming more prevalent in America. Example of a young child getting sick from contaminated apple juice. Information on E.coli 0157:H7. How it affected the fast food industry. Now not only corn fed cattle are carrying E.coli 0157 but grass fed free ranging ones also. How some vegetables including tomatoes are vulnerable. Also details recent outbreaks of food poisoning across America.


Environmental Protection Agency. Documents and Publications. Feedlot Facility Pays $8,000 for Alleged Animal Waste Violations. Ontario, Oregon, 2009. Print.

Press release from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) on an Oregon concentrated animal feeding operations owner paying fine his operation having animal waste leaking into a river tributary. How the EPA cracking down on animal feeding operations polluting waters under the Clean Water Act.

Cheap Calories Can Cost So Much...

In America money has influence over so many different aspects of our lives. It range's all the way from your education to your health. The health of lower income and minorities are getting worse and worse due to their eating habits. The pricing of food plays a big role in that. The governments subsidizing of corn is creating an epidemic of high fructose corn syrup being added to all types of food we eat. All the high fructose corn syrup and other energy dense foods we eat is a big part of why the obesity rate in America is so high. That obesity rate is why we have such a staggering number of people suffering from type 2 diabetes, especially children and teenagers. That number is even higher when it comes to minorities. One reason for that is those unhealthy foods are cheaper, since that is all they can afford, that is what they wind up eating.

The pricing of our food plays such an important part when we make the choice of what to eat. The fact that the cheapest foods are the unhealthiest is why our health problems continues to grow. Why is it that the higher calorie, energy dense processed foods are cheaper than the whole foods. You would think that since it takes so much more machinery, chemicals, and manpower to process food it would be more expensive than whole foods such as fruits and vegetables which only require growing and picking. In, “The Omnivore's Dilemma” by Michael Pollan, he says, “ One reason that obesity and diabetes become more prevalent the further down the socioeconomic scale you look is that the industrial food chain has made energy dense foods the cheapest foods in the market, when measured in terms of cost per calorie. A recent study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition compared the 'energy cost' of different foods in the supermarket. The researchers found that a dollar could buy 1.200 calories of potato chips and cookies; spent on a whole food like carrots the same dollar buys only 250 calories. On the beverage aisle, you can buy 875 calories of soda for a dollar, or 170 calories of fruit juice from concentrate. It makes good economic sense that people with limited money to spend on food would spend it on the cheapest calories- fats and sugars – are precisely the ones offering the biggest neurobiological rewards.” So because they only have limited money to spend they try to get the biggest bang for their buck. That bang puts them in the high risk category for diabetes and other diseases. As shown in Robert Kenner's movie, “ Food Inc.”, many lower income families rely on the fast food restaurants dollar or value menu to feed their family because that is all they can afford. Children wind up eating unhealthy calories day after day which is why type 2 diabetes is so prevalent in younger people today. We fill up on these foods because they are cheap. Pollan writes, “ When food is abundant and cheap, people will eat more of it and get fat.” Too bad we don't have healthy cheap food.

The government needs to acknowledge their part in the obesity epidemic. Changes need to be made to stop our dependency on products such as high fructose corn syrup, fats, and sugars. America is capable of growing and producing so many healthy fruits, vegetables, and whole foods that we should make them affordable. That way everyone no matter how much money you make is able to eat healthily and avoid food related diseases. There is a quote in Pollan's book that sums up why that change needs to come. “ Very simply, we subsidize high fructose corn syrup in this country but not carrots. While the surgeon general is raising alarms over the epidemic of obesity, the president is signing farm bills designed to keep the river of cheap corn flowing, guaranteeing that the cheapest calories in the supermarket will continue to be the unhealthiest.”

" The Power of Commitment "

Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to
draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of
initiative and creation, there is one elementary truth the
ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid
plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself,
then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to
help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A
whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in
one’s favour all manner of unforeseen incidents and
meetings and material assistance, which no man could
have dreamed would have come his or her way.

Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness
has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.

-J.W. von Goethe

ATTENTION All MOTHERS!!! Breaking News in the Pediatric Field !!!

The doctor no longer advises breast feeding or giving babies bottles of milk!!! Which doctor you ask?......World renowned, board certified pediatrician Dr.Pepper of course.

A Few Cents makes Sense...

New York is trying to decide whether or not to pass a tax on soda and other sugary drinks. Between the state of our economy and the unusually high obesity rate of Americans, in particular children, this should be a no-brainer. It essentially has the possibility of killing two birds with one stone. First, the tax money could be put towards our failing budget and help put a stop to all the cuts in everything from transportation, education and recreation to police, firefighters and health care workers.
Second, it could put a dent in the obesity rate of our children, which not only leads to a healthier, productive future for them, but also a brighter one for us and this country.


As reported in the New York Daily News by Samuel Goldsmith, “ An independent analysis of the state budget shows failure to pass the proposed soda tax would cost new York City 16,710 health care jobs. The study conducted by the Greater New York Hospital Association, indicates a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would stop the “systematic defunding of health care” in the city. 'The revenue expected to be raised from the soda tax, all of it would go toward vital health services that would prevent the kind of layoffs we've seen over the past few years.' Brian Conway, a vice president of the association, said yesterday. Conway says a penny-per-ounce sugar-sweetened beverage tax would provide some $507 million in tax revenue per year. 'If it fails we could be looking at even deeper health care cuts,' he said. 'The consequences of that could be awful.'” The last thing we need in this economy is more job cuts. The last place we need less qualified people working is in the health field, especially with Americans health being the way it is today. I believe it better to add taxes on something non-essential like soda, than to raise things more vital to New Yorkers survival such as metrocards, and income taxes. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy another beverage such as juice or milk, which are actually healthier for you anyway. Albany and City Hall have already had to lay off many workers because of the tremendous budget deficit. They have threatened to raise public transportation prices again. They have even had to install many cuts in funding to parks and recreations, which directly affects all of us. Finally, they have come up with a way to bring some money in that won't affect you unless you choose to let it. With all the stress that comes with living and working in the big city, plus the dangers that can come along with being a metropolis, imagine less health workers being there when you need them.


America is suffering from its highest obesity rate in decades. Americans today are larger and fatter than ever before. Our diet of processed foods and sugar-filled beverages have led us to massive weight gains. That extra fat leads to a myriad of health problems which contain major factors for heart attacks and strokes. These problems are usually reserved for the elderly, but the epidemic of obesity in our country has changed that. As Claudia Kalb from Newsweek wrote, “The epidemic is most alarming among American children: rates have tripled among kids ages 12 to 19 since 1980, with one third of America's youth now overweight or obese and almost 10 percent of infants and toddlers dangerously heavy. Obese kids, defined by a body-mass index at or above the 95th percentile for children of the same age and sex, are at risk for developing conditions in childhood once monopolized by adults: high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes. And many are stigmatized and suffer from low self-esteem, which can lead to depression. If current trends continue, nearly one in three kids born in 2000 and one I two minorities will develop type 2 diabetes in their lifetime, according to the American Diabetes Association. The disease is linked to heart attack, stroke, blindness, amputation, and kidney disease. Indeed, a study published last month found that obese children are more than twice as likely to die prematurely as adults than kids on the lower end of the weight spectrum.” We need to make parents as well as children aware of this problem. By adding a tax to soda and sweetened beverages, maybe we can raise kids awareness. They may question why the price of their Cherry Coke has gone up. Questions lead to answers. This can lead them to learning how unhealthy soda actually is, and how it possibly can shorten their lifespan. Many children have never been informed how unhealthy soda is or that there are healthier alternatives available for them. People say it's impossible to make an intelligent decision without all the facts. Hopefully those added cents on that Mountain Dew will get the youth talking and maybe bring about a change in their diet.


The future of New Yorkers, both financially and physically are in bad shape as it stands now. We need to make changes now if we want that to change. We cannot afford potentially devastating cuts to our public health and health care system by laying off thousands of workers. The result of that would put people's lives in danger. If we continue to keep high sugar beverages in our childrens diets, we are putting their lives in danger. Take this first step in change and pass the soda tax which is projected to bring in hundreds of millions to help stimulate the economy and save many jobs. It also will encourage healthier lifestyle choices which lead to a brighter, healthier, more productive future for our children and our country.


Goldsmith, Samuel, "Pass the soda tax or jobs will be canned, sez group", NY Daily News, March 21, 2010 Sports Final Edition


Kalb, Claudia, "Culture of Corpulence: American Innovations In Food, Transportation, and Technology are Threatening to Supersize Us All" Newsweek, March 22, 2010 U.S. Edition