Model Statute Limiting Food
Marketing at Schools
Developed by the National Policy & Legal Analysis Network
to Prevent Childhood Obesity (NPLAN), a ChangeLab Solution
changelabsolutions.org
l
nplan.org
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
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.
Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools
changelabsolutions.org
2
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
The School Food Environment
Recognizing 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
Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools
changelabsolutions.org
3
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.
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 onefourth 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 Issues
States 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 Revenue
Some 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
Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools
changelabsolutions.org
4
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
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 Model
The 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.
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
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 Standard
Currently, 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 could be used in the statute:
Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools
changelabsolutions.org
8
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 Standard
As 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:
(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;
Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools
changelabsolutions.org
9
(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: Enforcement
Methods 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 Schools
Some 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
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
Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools
changelabsolutions.org
10
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.
Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools
changelabsolutions.org
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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.
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.
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.
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.
Id.
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.
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.
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.
Id. at 3.
Id.
42 U.S.C. 1779(b).
7 C.F.R. Parts 210 and 220. [FNS-2011-0019]
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.
Federal Child Nutrition and Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L.108-265), 42 U.S.C.
1758b.
42 U.S.C. 204 (b)(1).
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.
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.
Harris, et. al. at 2, supra, note 12.
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.
Id.
20-A Maine Rev. Stats. Ann. § 6662.
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.”)
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).
Lehman, supra, at 303–304; see, also, Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 392–393
Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools
changelabsolutions.org
12
(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-boostrevenue-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-minimalnutritional-value-schools.
32 Id.
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:
48
http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/TFAH2012FasInFatFnlRv.pdf.
42 U.S.C. 1758b.
49
Id.
50
A. Molnar et al., supra note 12.
51
Id.
52
Id.
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&se
ssionid=&sessionid=a3752a3fb550360bb158ee705379d76e.
Model Statute Limiting Food Marketing at Schools
changelabsolutions.org
13