SCHOOLS FLUNK WHEN IT COMES TO GOOD NUTRITION.

Byline: Paul Koretz and Alicia de Soto-Foley Local View

WHO is paying the price of today's obesity epidemic among young people?

As nutrition-related diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and cancer continue to skyrocket, junk food and soft drink companies continue to make huge inroads in their ability to sell to our children in schools.

While our children consume candy, chips and soft drinks - ``competitive foods'' in food services lingo - from student stores, vending machines and cafeterias, the medical tab for U.S. diabetics alone will soon climb to $100 billion, with increasing numbers of young diabetics partly responsible for that jump.

The health of 6 million American children is currently in jeopardy due to being overweight.

Should our children be served these unhealthy products on school campuses, or should schools be safe havens from rampant commercialism?

Senate Bill 19 (Escutia-Norwalk), addresses this question and many other important school nutrition issues, including the links between nutrition and concentration, grades, test scores and absenteeism.

SB 19 sets nutritional standards for all foods sold outside the National School Lunch Program.

This sounds like a win-win situation for school nutrition and the health of our children.

But the snack and soft drink lobbies have been working overtime to convince school administrators that without the funding provided by sweet and salty snack foods and sugary drink sales, schools will have no extracurricular activities on their campuses.

Their pitch is simple: you can endorse exclusive junk food or soda contracts and we'll pay for some athletic uniforms.

Instead of losing revenue, in fact, Senate Bill 19 increases the amount of money that the state reimburses schools for free and reduced-price meals and creates a grant program for districts to establish community-based advisory committees to develop district nutrition policies.

The bill's restrictions, moreover, are limited and quite specific. The bill does not prohibit the sale of fund-raising candy when they are not sold during school hours, nor does it limit any type of food sold during athletic events after school hours.

The bill does not prohibit vending machines. It does, however, limit the types of items sold in them.

The Snack Foods Association and the Pepsi Bottling Group, to name two opponents, claim that the problem does not lie with their products, but with the lack of physical activity among schoolchildren. Make no mistake about it - children today are far more sedentary than their predecessors were, and physical activity is an important component of a healthy lifestyle.

These organizations would also have you believe that, with exercise, Pepsi and pork rinds consumed on a daily basis can be part of a healthy diet. Physical activity and healthy eating can be linked: School gardens are an excellent example.

Most importantly, an overall ``healthy schools'' approach would seek to link physical activity, healthy school food choices like the Santa Monica school district's award-winning farmers market salad bar, and a learning-by-doing nutrition education program.

Huge multinational corporations like Pepsi are suggesting a far different path: let them profit from unhealthy food choices for students, including through exclusive contracts to stock the vending machines on school grounds with their brands.

Our children should not become pawns in a corporate moneymaking scheme whose rules are written by lobbyists who disingenuously argue, ``Nothing will stop the students from purchasing soft drinks on their way to school,'' so why not sell it to them at school?

With 72 percent of the approximately 700,000 children in Los Angeles Unified School District eligible for free or reduced school meals and snacks, the district - and others like it - must prioritize good nutrition, tasty, culturally appropriate foods and the long-term health of these students.

SB 19 will assist school districts in providing healthy options to their students rather than being forced to partner with candy, chip and soda companies to fund student activities.