New columnist tackles junk food debate

Editor’s note: This week, John Murray, Free State High School senior, joins Double Take. As has been our tradition, John chose this week’s topic. It’s one that’s sure to be debated well beyond this column.

John: Because my teachers are unlikely to listen to me whine during class, I’m going to use my first column to rant about the newly minted junk food sanctions imposed on all Lawrence public schools. The ban on sugary foods may look sweet to those concerned about child obesity, but it lacks any creamy filling within. For one, it only eliminates junk food the school brings in and ignores what kids bring from outside school. It encourages kids to blame the system, rather than take control of their own fitness. And did I mention it’s really annoying? At Free State High School, students started a petition to allow hot cookies to continue being sold at lunch. Hundreds have signed. If you’ve tasted one of these cookies, you’d understand.

On the list of “bad things to do as a teenager,” junk food ranks below the floor. A kid who tries huffing can incur brain damage. A kid who abuses drugs can have a heart attack. A kid who packs a Milky Way will still be able to get a job, go to college and lose weight if he makes the effort.

Besides, I’m betting most of the adults behind the injunction would kill to get their high school bodies back. Because they are growing and participating in more sports, most teens burn enough calories to justify eating a cookie or two. By contrast, the majority of adults are overweight, but how many would support banning vending machines at work?

The biggest problem with the ban on sweets is that it tries to embrace a protectionist philosophy without acknowledging that most kids need just enough rope to hang themselves. When sugary fare is available, teens are able to make mistakes that won’t debilitate them for life. And with the ability to make mistakes comes the ability to learn from those mistakes.

For example, I know a kid who realized he was overweight, and he decided that he needed to make a concerted effort to change his diet. All year I watched him struggle to cut down on snacks and fatty foods. By summer, he was visibly healthier and brimming with confidence. He and I had learned a valuable lesson: If you make the effort, you can make your body as healthy as you please. But when the school tries to take responsibility for teens’ minor life choices, I’m afraid we’ll be learning to blame the system. Hand me a Hershey’s – it’s going to be a long year.

Wes: There is much to be said for John’s position, which stresses free will over external authority. When I was 17 I didn’t care much for the school intruding into my personal life, either. I suspected they just wanted to indoctrinate me into conventionality and passive acquiescence. It was my duty to resist. Those were the good old days.

However John is right about my 43-year-old body. I have Type-II diabetes. Weight watching is driving me right over the edge. Our adult world isn’t organized around physical exercise, and when something has to give, that’s it. I was no junk food king in my teens, but I ate my fair share of grease, sugar and fast-acting carbs, and John is right – I didn’t gain weight until my early 20s. Once I went to college, I was thrust into the free world of especially starchy and sugary foods, and somehow the salad bar just didn’t have the same appeal for me or any of my peers. Thus, I had the freshman 15 (pounds), and then a sophomore 15 and a junior 15 and so on. By my early 30s, my body had decided that this was enough. Now I’m stuck on a permanent diet with a lot of meds to boot. If I knew then what I know now, I’d have been a lot smarter about what I ate.

I am impressed with John’s friend. I’d encourage all teenagers to take their bodies that seriously. But a great many won’t, leaving us with a growing problem, no pun intended. Statistically, we have two troubling groups – the undereaters who are pushing toward anorexia, and a new and fast-growing group who are headed the other way toward obesity. Of course, there’s a third group who are doing just fine, getting reasonable exercise, consuming just enough junk food to be happy. If more teens belonged to that group, we wouldn’t have a problem.

Regarding the school’s take on vending machines, I realize that the junk kids consume in school has little real effect on their weight or health. Just as Breathalyzers will not address teen substance abuse without a broader, more concerted effort, banning Twinkies will not address teen obesity. But that’s not really the issue. Instead, we have to consider what sort of behavior and attitudes we want our schools to reinforce. The school has decided that consuming junk food isn’t one of them, and it’s hard to argue with that position.

John is correct. The school can’t take responsibility for anyone’s choices. But it can choose whether to be a party to those choices. For those feeling terribly afflicted by this turn of events, there is no shortage of fast food and candy stands just up the street from nearly every high school and junior high in the county. I bet they’ll appreciate the business.

Next week: A reader asks about testing for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

– Dr. Wes Crenshaw is a board-certified family psychologist and director of the Family Therapy Institute Midwest. John Murray is a Free State High School senior. Opinions and advice given here are not meant as a substitute for psychological evaluation or therapy services. Send your questions about adolescent issues to doubletake@ljworld.com. All correspondence is strictly confidential.