Model Healthy Beverage Vending Web viewTitle: Model Healthy Beverage Vending Agreement Author: SANDRA KOENIG Last modified by: kwilliamson Created Date: 11/8/2013 11:09:00 PM Company:

Developed by the National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity (NPLAN), a ChangeLab Solution

changelabsolutions.org l nplan.org

Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools

Today, one-third of American children and adolescents are obese or overweight.1 The obesity epidemic is of great concern, because obese children are at least twice as likely as non-obese children to become obese adults2 and are at increased risk for serious health problems in adulthood, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, asthma, and cancer.3 In addition, studies demonstrate a relationship between healthy eating, regular physical activity, and students’ academic success.4 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that students who are physically active and eat a more nutritious diet receive higher grades than their classmates who are physically inactive and eat foods that are less nutritious.5 Finally, obesity-related health conditions have serious economic costs. The medical costs of adult obesity are rising rapidly and are estimated to be as high as $147 billion per year.6

The marketing of foods of poor nutritional value to American children contributes to the rise in obesity by affecting children’s food preferences, choices, and diet.7 In 2006, the food industry spent more than $1.6 billion on marketing mainly foods of poor nutritional value to youth, including about $514 million on television advertising and other forms of national media.8 Research demonstrates that children are particularly vulnerable to advertising. Children under eight do not have the cognitive ability to discern that advertising presents a biased point of view.9 Older children and adolescents understand the intent of advertising, but resisting advertising for the types of foods most commonly advertised requires the ability to “weigh long-term health consequences of consumption against short-term rewards,” an ability that young people don’t fully develop until their early 20s.10

Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org 2

The National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity (NPLAN) is a project of ChangeLab Solutions. ChangeLab Solutions is a nonprofit organization that provides legal information on matters relating to public health. The legal information in this document does not constitute legal advice or legal representation. For legal advice, readers should consult a lawyer in their state.

Support for this document was provided by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

November 2013

© 2013 ChangeLab Solutions

The School Food EnvironmentRecognizing that the academic success of America’s youth is strongly linked with their health, the federal government, states, and schools are working to make the school environment healthier. Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Congress gave the U.S. Department of Agriculture the authority to update federal guidelines to improve the nutritional quality of school meals and all “competitive foods,” that is, all foods sold on campus during the school day other than the meals provided under the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program.11 Implementation of the updated school meal standards began with the 2012–2013 school year. The updated nutrition standards for competitive foods – those sold in à la carte lines, school stores, vending machines, and other venues – will be in effect for the 2014–2015 school year.12 Prior to Congress passing the act, 35 states and Washington, D.C., set nutrition standards for competitive foods sold at schools and 29 states and Washington, D.C., set limits on when and where competitive foods may be sold on school campuses.13 And since 2006, school districts have been required to establish wellness policies that include nutrition guidelines for all foods available on each school campus during the school day with the objectives of promoting student health and reducing childhood obesity.14 The act required schools to engage in nutrition promotion for student wellness.15

While strong efforts have been made to improve the nutritional quality of food sold and served at schools, less attention has been focused on food marketing at schools. The Federal Trade Commission found that in 2009 food and beverage manufacturers spent nearly $149 million on youth-directed in-school marketing, although it believes that figure underestimates the actual amount of spending.16 Food marketing in schools includes branded food sales; direct advertising on school property and facilities (through television, radio, posters, and print advertising); exclusive agreements to sell only products from a particular manufacturer; sponsorship of school programs, incentive programs, and supplementary educational materials; fundraising programs; free samples and coupon giveaways; and digital marketing.17 School-based marketing is “designed specifically to increase children’s affinity and desire for companies’ products by increasing familiarity and positive associations with the brands.”18

Marketing foods of poor nutritional value at schools conflicts with schools’ efforts to promote a healthier nutrition environment and to educate children on proper nutrition. If children are taught through school health and nutrition curricula to limit their intake of these foods and at the same time the foods are promoted by school-based advertising and marketing, the lessons of school health and nutrition curricula and the efforts to provide students with a healthy diet are undercut. The marketing also undermines parents’ efforts to feed their children a healthy diet.

Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org 3

Schools continue to allow the marketing of foods of poor nutritional quality. In 2012, about one-third of districts surveyed by the CDC in its 2012 School Health Policies and Practices study allowed soft drink companies to advertise on school grounds, and more than one-fourth allowed those companies to advertise in school buildings.19 At least half of schools surveyed allowed the distribution of products, such as T-shirts, hats, or book covers, promoting junk food, fast food restaurants, or soft drinks to students; half allowed the use of food or food coupons for rewards for good behavior or academic performance.20

To date, only Maine has a law prohibiting the advertising of certain foods and beverages at schools.21 (Other states, such as New Jersey and Utah, have restricted certain types of advertising on school buses.)22

Legal IssuesStates can help advance schools’ efforts to improve student health and promote healthy school environments by enacting laws preventing the marketing of food and beverages that cannot be sold at schools. States have the authority to regulate the practices of school districts. Opponents might attempt to raise objections under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from making laws that abridge the freedom of speech, including advertising. Although the First Amendment restricts what government can do about advertising in public places, a well-crafted law prohibiting all marketing activities or the marketing of certain types of products at schools would likely survive a First Amendment challenge.23 Because of the unique educational mission of schools, the First Amendment leaves a lot of leeway for the government to regulate the types of commercial messages that are allowed on school grounds.24 To minimize the chance of running into First Amendment problems, the model statute provides sound justifications – such as efforts to promote good health habits among students and support the curriculum – to support the law.25 This model statute also sets forth precise guidelines about what will and will not be permitted.

School RevenueSome policymakers and school community members may be concerned that limiting advertising by manufacturers of unhealthy foods and beverages may hurt schools financially. Some school districts sell advertising space on school buses and stadiums, as well as inside the school to supplement their budgets.26 For example, The Dallas Morning News reported that the Carroll Independent School District in North Texas receives about $250,000 per year in revenue from advertisements on its website, mailings, and from building naming rights, while the North Texas Allen Independent School District expected to receive about $1 million from corporate sponsorships in its new stadium.27 The News Tribune in Tacoma, Wash., reported that the Tacoma School District raised $80,000 from selling advertising on district scoreboards from 2011 to August 2012.28

Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org 4

But a recent report from Public Citizen found that school districts that have turned to advertising on school property to raise funds have received minimal revenue, particularly compared with their total operating budgets.29 The report, which reviewed data from the 2010–2011 and 2011–2012 academic years for five large school districts, found that in comparison with the districts’ total budgets as well as districts’ budget deficits, revenues from all commercial advertising were trivial, with average revenues as a percentage of the total budget ranging from 0.002 percent to 0.03 percent.30

There are few data on the amount of revenue raised by schools specifically from allowing marketing by companies that sell foods of minimal nutritional value and food high in fat and sugar. A nationwide survey of 391 public elementary, middle, and high schools found that 73 percent of schools that participated in income-generating advertising with corporations that sell those foods received no advertising income in the 2003–2004 academic year and only 4 percent of schools received over $10,000.31 Eighty-seven percent of schools surveyed reported that they would not need to reduce programs or activities if the advertising were eliminated.32

Understanding the ModelThe model statute prohibits the advertising of specific brands of the foods or beverages that may be sold on the school campus during the school day. The language in the model statute is designed to be tailored to the needs of a particular state. The language written in italics provides different options or explains the type of information that needs to be inserted in the blank spaces to customize the statute. The “comments” provide additional information and explanation. While the model is designed as a statute, it could be enacted at the school district level as a policy by a board of education or as part of a school wellness policy.

Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org 5

Model Statute: Food Marketing at Schools

AN ACT TO LIMIT THE MARKETING OF FOODS AND BEVERAGES AT SCHOOLS.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF [______________]:

SECTION ONE. Findings:

The Legislature finds and declares the following:

(a) Childhood obesity rates in the United States have risen dramatically over the past 30 years and today almost one-third of American children are obese or overweight.33 In ____ [state] _____ percent of children are overweight or obese. Poor diet and physical inactivity increase the risk for certain chronic health conditions, including high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and obesity.34

Several organizations provide state-specific information breaking down the extent of the obesity rates in a specific state. One resource is Trust for America’s Health. Information is available at: http://healthyamericans.org/report/98/obseityratesbystate.

A resource specifically for childhood obesity data by state is the 2011 National Survey of Children’s Health. Information is available at: http://childhealthdata.org/browse/allstates?q=2612.

(b) The medical costs of obesity are rising rapidly in the United States and are estimated to be $147 billion per year.35 Roughly half of these obesity-related costs are paid by Medicare and Medicaid, indicating that taxpayers foot the bill for obesity’s medical costs.36 Obesity-related health-care spending accounts for 8.5 percent of Medicare spending, 11.8 percent of Medicaid spending, and 12.9 percent of private payer spending.37

(c) The marketing of foods of poor nutritional value to American children contributes to the rise in obesity by affecting children’s food preferences, choices, and diet.38 In 2006, the food industry spent more than $1.6 billion on marketing mainly foods of poor nutritional value to youth.39 Children are particularly vulnerable to advertising because their cognitive abilities are not fully formed until the early 20s.40

(d) The mission of our schools is to educate our children. Increasingly, studies demonstrate a relationship between healthy eating, regular physical activity, and students’ academic success.41 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that students who are physically active and eat a nutritious diet receive higher

Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org 6

grades than their classmates who are physically inactive and eat foods that are less nutritious.42 Helping students to stay healthy promotes academic success.

(e) While national, state, and local efforts have improved the nutritional quality of foods provided and sold in schools, many schools permit the marketing of foods high in calories, fat, and sugar and of minimal nutritional value.43 That marketing includes sales, free samples, and advertising of unhealthy foods; corporate-sponsored fundraising programs which encourage students and their families to sell, purchase, and consume foods and beverages with little nutritional value; incentive programs, which reward children with free or discounted foods or beverages when they reach certain academic goals; sponsorship of school programs or events; and branded educational materials.

(f) Permitting the advertising of foods and beverages at schools that may not be sold there interferes with school messages promoting good health and academic success. If children are taught through school health and nutrition curriculum to limit their intake of these foods and at the same time the foods are promoted by school-based advertising and marketing, the lessons of school health and nutrition curricula are undermined. The marketing also undermines parents’ efforts to feed their children a healthy diet.

SECTION TWO. [State Code] is hereby amended by adding thereto a new chapter to read as follows:

CHAPTER [__]

Section _-1.

(a) Definition.

(1) “Advertising” means an oral, written, or graphic statement or representation, including a company logo or trademark, made for the purpose of promoting the use or sale of a product by the producer, manufacturer, distributer, seller, or any other entity with a commercial interest in the product.

[(2) “Brand” means a corporate or product name, a business image, or a mark, regardless of whether it may legally qualify as a trademark used by a seller or manufacturer to identify goods or services and to distinguish them from competitors’ goods.]

Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org 7

(b) Food and beverage advertising prohibited in schools. Except as provided in subsection (c), a [school superintendent] [fill in name of authority] shall prohibit at any school within the district:

(1) the advertising of any food or beverage that may not be sold on the school campus during the school day or of any corporate brand, unless every food and beverage product manufactured, sold, or distributed under the corporate brand name [or by any of the corporate brand’s subsidiaries and affiliated corporations] can be served or sold on the school campus during the school day.

1 Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, et al. 2010. “Prevalence of High Body Mass Index in US Children and Adolescents, 2007–2008.” Journal of the American Medical Association 3: 242–249, www.jama.ama-assn.org/content/303/3/242.full.

2 Serdula MK, Ivery D, Coates RJ, et al. 1993. “Do Obese Children Become Obese Adults? A Review of the Literature.” Preventive Medicine 2: 167–177.

3 US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General. 2007. The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity, p. 8, http://surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_adolescents.htm; Food and Nutrition Board and Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. 2005. Preventing Childhood Obesity: Health in the Balance. The National Academic Press, p. 332, http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11015&page=332.

4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. “Physical Inactivity and Unhealthy Dietary Behaviors and Academic Achievement,” Fact Sheet, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2009 (YRBS), www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/health_and_academics/pdf/physical_inactivity_unhealthy_weight.pdf.

5 Id.6 Finkelstein EA, Trogdon JG, Cohen JW, et al. 2009. “Annual Medical Spending Attributable to Obesity: Payer- and

Service-Specific Estimates.” Health Affairs 5: w822–w831, http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/5/w822.long.7 Institute of Medicine, Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth. 2006. Food Marketing to

Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? Washington, DC: National Academies Press, www.iom.edu/Reports/2005/Food-Marketing-to-Children-and-Youth-Threat-or-Opportunity.aspx.

8 Harris JL, Graff SK. “Protecting children from harmful food marketing: options for local government to make a difference.” Prev Chronic Dis 2011;8(5):A92. www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2011/sep/10_0272.htm.

9 Id. at 3.10 Id.11 42 U.S.C. 1779(b).12 7 C.F.R. Parts 210 and 220. [FNS-2011-0019]13 Trust for America’s Health, F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens America’s Future, p. 55, 2012, at:

http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/TFAH2012FasInFatFnlRv.pdf.14 Federal Child Nutrition and Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L.108-265), 42

U.S.C. 1758b.15 42 U.S.C. 204 (b)(1).16 A Review of Food Marketing to Children and Adolescents: Follow-up Report, Federal Trade Commission, 2012. P.

23–24. Available at: www.ftc.gov/os/2012/12/121221foodmarketingreport.pdf. 17 Molnar A, Boninger F, Wilkinson G, Fogarty J, and Geary S. Effectively Embedded: Schools and the Machinery of

Modern Marketing – The Thirteenth Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercializing Trends: 2009-2010. Commercialism in Education Research Unit, National Education Policy Center, 2010. P. 2–6. Available at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/Schoolhouse-commercialism-2010.Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org

8

Advertising is prohibited on any property or facility owned or leased by the school district or school and used at any time for school-related activities, including, but not limited to, school buildings, athletic fields, facilities, signs, scoreboards, or parking lots, or any school buses or other vehicles, equipment, vending machines, uniforms, educational material, or supplies. For purposes of this statute, food and beverages that may not be sold on the school campus during the school day are those that do not meet the minimum nutrition standards for foods sold outside the school meal programs as set forth by the United States Department of Agriculture under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids

18 Harris, et. al. at 2, supra, note 12. 19 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Results from the School

Health Policies and Practices Study 2012. P. 87–88. Available at: www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/shpps/index.htm.20 Id.21 20-A Maine Rev. Stats. Ann. § 6662.22 New Jersey Stats. Ann. § 18A:39-31 (prohibiting advertisements on school buses for tobacco or alcohol products, for

political advocacy, and prohibits “any other advertisements for products or services or by sponsors that the Commissioner of Education deems inappropriate”); Utah Code Ann. § 41-6a-1309 (requires any advertising to be “age-appropriate” and prohibits “promotion of any substance or activity that is illegal for minors, such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or gambling; promotion of any political party, candidate, or issue; or sexual material.”)

23 Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974) (holding that city transit system was not a public forum under the First Amendment and that refusal to accept political advertising did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments). For a more in-depth discussion of the First Amendment, please see S. Graff, “First Amendment Implications of Restricting Food and Beverage Marketing in Schools.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,” 615 (2008).

24 Lehman, supra, at 303–304; see, also, Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 392–393 (1993) (citation omitted) (“[c]ontrol over access to a nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral”); Diloreto v. Downey Unified Sch. Dist., 196 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding school district could refuse to post a paid advertisement containing the text of the Ten Commandments on a fence on a school baseball field because fence was a nonpublic forum).

25 Id.26 See, e.g., Meyers J. 2012. “Ads on Buses, Buildings Boost Revenue for Cash-Strapped Dallas-Area Schools,” Dallas

Morning News, March 30, updated April 2, www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20120330-eager-to-boost-revenue-dallas-area-schools-shift-protocol-and-accept-advertising.ece.

27 Id.28 Cafazzo D. 2013. “Puyallup School District Mulls Selling Ads to Bolster Revenue,” The News Tribune, July 15,

www.thenewstribune.com/2013/07/15/2678125/puyallup-school-district-mulls.html.29 Ben-Ishai E. “School Commercialism: High Costs, Low Revenues,” Public Citizen, 2012. Available at:

www.commercialalert.org/PDFs/SchoolCommercialismReport_PC.pdf. 30 Ben-Ishai E. School Commercialism. Public Citizen, 2012. P. 13. 31 Molnar A, Garcia D, Boninger F, and Merril B. A National Survey of the Types and Extent of the Marketing of Foods

of Minimal Nutritional Value in Schools. Commercialism in Education Research Unit, Arizona State University, 2006. P. 43–46. Available at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/national-survey-types-and-extent-marketing-foods-minimal-nutritional-value-schools.

32 Id. Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org

9

Act of 2010 and federal regulations implementing the Act [42 U.S.C. section 1779(b)];

COMMENT: The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which reauthorized the federal child nutrition programs, requires the USDA to update the nutrition standards for all “competitive foods,” that is, all foods sold anywhere on campus during the school day other than the meals provided under the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program.44 The new rules setting nutrition standards for competitive foods will be in effect for the 2014–2015 school year.45 Eliminating the advertising of foods that may not be sold on campus reinforces Congress’s intent that schools “safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children.”46 The model statute also eliminates the advertising of corporate brands that do not refer to specific foods and beverages unless all of the foods and beverages the manufacturer sells meet the nutrition standards.

Alternative Standards for Prohibited Foods and Beverages

State StandardCurrently, about 35 states and Washington, D.C., have set nutritional standards for competitive foods sold at schools in their states.47 The USDA regulations are minimum standards, allowing states to set higher standards if they choose. In the event a state has a law exceeding the national competitive food standards, the following language

33 Ogden CL et al., supra note 1.34 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. School Health Guidelines to Promote Healthy Eating and Physical

Activity. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 5:1–74, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6005a1.htm. 35 Finkelstein EA et al., supra note 4. 36 Id. 37 Id.38 Institute of Medicine, Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth. 2006. Food Marketing to

Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? Washington, DC: National Academies Press, www.iom.edu/Reports/2005/Food-Marketing-to-Children-and-Youth-Threat-or-Opportunity.aspx.

39 Harris JL, Graff SK. “Protecting children from harmful food marketing: options for local government to make a difference.” Prev Chronic Dis 2011;8(5):A92. www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2011/sep/10_0272.htm.

40 Id.41 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. “Physical Inactivity and Unhealthy Dietary Behaviors and Academic

Achievement,” Fact Sheet, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2009 (YRBS), www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/health_and_academics/pdf/physical_inactivity_unhealthy_weight.pdf.

42 Id.43 A. Molnar et al., supra note 12.44 42 U.S.C. 1779(b).45 7 C.F.R. Parts 210 and 220. [FNS-2011-0019]46 42 U.S.C. 1751.47 Trust for America’s Health, F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens America’s Future, p. 55, 2012. Available at:

http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/TFAH2012FasInFatFnlRv.pdf.Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org

10

could be used in the statute:

For purposes of this statute, food and beverages that may not be sold on the school campus during the school day are those that do not meet the minimum nutrition standards as set forth under [state law section(s)].

Wellness Policy StandardAs noted above, districts must have wellness policies that establish nutrition guidelines for all foods available on each school campus during the school day with the objectives of promoting student health and reducing childhood obesity.48 Any nutrition guidelines included in a wellness policy must be consistent with or exceed the USDA nutrition standards.49 Some states may wish to allow school districts to establish advertising standards that reflect the nutrition standards in district wellness policies. If so, the following language could be used in the statute:

For purposes of this statute, food and beverages that may not be sold on the school campus during the school day are those that do not meet the nutrition standards as set forth under the District wellness policy, provided that those standards are consistent with or exceed the minimum nutrition standards for foods sold outside the school meal programs as set forth by the United States Department of Agriculture under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 and federal regulations implementing the Act. [42 U.S.C. section 1779(b)].

(2) the participation in a corporate incentive program that rewards children with free or discounted foods or beverages that may not be sold on the school campus during the school day when they reach certain academic goals; or

(3) the participation in corporate-sponsored programs that provide funds to schools in exchange for consumer purchases of foods and beverages that may not be sold on the school campus during the school day.

COMMENT: Particularly in elementary and middle schools, advertising (or marketing) of foods and beverages occurs though incentive programs and corporate fundraising programs. A study of elementary and middle schools in the United States found that fundraising programs were the most common marketing activity in the primary schools.50 The study found that 37.7 percent of primary schools reported participating in a fundraising program with a corporation that sells foods high in fat or sugar or foods with minimal nutritional value.51 Second most common were incentive programs, with 31.6 percent of primary schools reporting participation in an incentive program.52

(c) Exceptions: The restriction on Advertising in subsection (b) shall not apply to:

48 42 U.S.C. 1758b.49 Id.

Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org 11

(1) Advertising on broadcast, digital, or print media, unless the media are produced or controlled by the local education agency, school, faculty, or its students;

(2) Advertising on clothing with brand images worn on school grounds; or

(3) Advertising contained on product packaging.

COMMENT: The model statute does not prohibit advertising that is contained in print, broadcast, or digital media, over which the school has no control, because these media may be valuable learning resources. The model statute does prohibit advertising on media that are controlled by the school, or written or created by students or school personnel, such as school publications, school broadcasts, or school websites.

(d) Enforcement. [Any person or persons, firm or corporation, resident in any school district, paying taxes to such political unit, may institute suits or actions at law for an injunction preventing a violation of this section and an accounting and/or the recovery of funds received or expended in violation of this section.]

COMMENT: EnforcementMethods of enforcement of education laws vary by state. Whether this statute needs a specific enforcement clause is dependent upon each state’s statutory and case law.

To help to ensure that schools comply with the law, as well as accountability, the model identifies the individual (the school district superintendent or comparable official) responsible for carrying out the statute. If the official does not comply with the statute, the board overseeing and employing the superintendent may take disciplinary action. Members of the public who are concerned with any violations can also raise the issue at a school board meeting, enabling the community to participate in oversight.

In addition, in many states an individual may bring a taxpayer’s action to prevent the district from entering into or set aside illegal or unauthorized contracts. Taxpayer’s actions may also be brought to prevent, set aside, or recover funds from other unauthorized acts of a school superintendent. This model provides optional language to expressly provide that violation of this law is a basis for a taxpayer’s action.

Prohibiting All Advertising at SchoolsSome citizens believe that any advertising in schools conflicts with the mission of the school system. Others believe that in tight times, the need for revenue outweighs those

50 A. Molnar et al., supra note 12.51 Id. 52 Id.

Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org 12

concerns. Last year, the Seattle Unified School District, which had a complete ban on advertising in schools, revised its policy to allow certain types of advertising on fields, scoreboards, stadiums, and the annual calendar to raise revenue for the schools. The policy prohibits the advertising of certain products, including foods and beverages that may not be sold on campus. The district plans on reviewing the policy to examine how much revenue is raised.53

A state legislature may wish to ban all advertising at schools. As described above, a complete ban on advertising should survive a First Amendment or other legal challenges. Implementing a complete ban on advertising can be more complex than banning unhealthy foods and beverages, because athletic uniforms, sports and office equipment, and supplies often contain logos or product branding. If you are interested in a complete ban on advertising in schools, please contact ChangeLab Solutions for assistance.

53 More information on the Seattle Unified School District Board Policy 4237 is available at: www.seattleschools.org/modules/cms/pages.phtml?sessionid=a3752a3fb550360bb158ee705379d76e&pageid=228156&sessionid=&sessionid=a3752a3fb550360bb158ee705379d76e.Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org

13

Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools changelabsolutions.org 14