 |
|||||
 |
The Global Failure To Disclose Carcinogenic Contaminants In Bottled Drinks Sold To Children Ross E. Getman, Esq. DC and NYS bars (email) |
|
|||
|
Michele Simon, "Big Soda's Publicity Stunt," AlterNet, CA - Aug 29, 2005 Ross Getman, "Parent power can get soda out of the schools," Buffalo News, Aug. 27, 2005 "Soft Drink Makers Widen a Ban on School Sales," Kashar News [Pakistan], Aug. 22, 2005 "Soda Makers Widen a Ban on School Sales," Boston Globe, Aug. 18. 2005 "School market fizzling for Pepsi and Coca-Cola," Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 18, 2005 "Soft-drink ban extended: Coke, Pepsi to keep their products out of middle schools," Kansas City Star, Aug. 18, 2005: INFOBAEprofesional.com, "Coca-Cola y Pepsi pretenden cambiar su imagen," "Suspendieron la venta de gaseosas en escuelas de EEUU, Corrientes al dia Coca-Cola y Pepsi dejarán de vender gaseosas en escuelas secundarias, Miami Herald, Aug. 18, 2005 "Coca-Cola, Pepsi to Ban Sales in U.S. Middle Schools," Bloomberg Aug. 17, 2005 "Connecticut May Ban Soft Drinks in Schools on Obesity Concern," Bloomberg, May 25, 2005 Eric Lipton, "Qaeda Letters Are Said To Show Pre-9/11 Anthrax Plans," New York Times, May 21, 2005 Ross Getman, "Arnie is pumped up again about soda and junk food in school," OpinionEditorials.com, reprinted at Education News.org, March 17, 2005 Getman, "Shaping Up the Schools," Sacramento Union, March __ 2005 Getman, " Schools should go soda-free all day," Baltimore Sun, March 1, 2005
Getman, "Soda and junk food in school," Advocate-Messenger [KY], Feb. 25, 2005 "Soft drinks in school a problem," CoopersTown [NY] Crier, February 3, 2005 Getman, "Better obesity plan," Bradenton Herald, Jan. 27, 2005 Getman, "Schools should go soda-free during the day," Syracuse Post-Standard, Jan. 26, 2005 Getman, "Keep cola out of our schools," Record, Jan. 24, 2005 Getman, "Others should also abolish soda sales in schools," St. Petersburg Times, Dec. 30, 2004 Getman, "Letters," Austin Statesman, Dec. 29, 2004 Getman, "Schools and Nutrition," Denver Post, Dec. 21, 2004 "For Love of Munchies," The Weird Chronicles, February 12, 2004 Getman, "Schools Sell Out Kids With Soda 'Pouring Rights," Syracuse Post-Standard , Dec 17, 2003
_________________________________ Court challenge to `pouring rights' contracts with schools By JOEL STASHENKO Associated Press Writer July 27, 2003, 9:31 AM EDT ALBANY, N.Y. -- A legal challenge before a state judge in Albany could leave school districts and their lucrative contracts with soda companies flat. State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi is deciding whether the contract Coca-Cola signed with the Fulton school district in Oswego County is constitutional. By extension, the ruling is expected to affirm, or to call into question, the legality of some 70 similar "pouring rights" contracts in other districts around the state. The Syracuse-based American Quality Beverages contends Coca-Cola's contract with the Fulton district effectively locked it out of supplying other drinks to the district, such as non-carbonated sports drinks and beverages for non-school events for the general public on school grounds. "We deserve the fundamental American right to do business with public schools, provided we participate in the bid process and we win the bid," said American Quality Beverages President Larry Alibrandi. The suit challenges last fall's decision by state Education Commissioner Richard Mills upholding the validity of the Fulton contract and a series of others that districts have reached in recent years with Coke or Pepsi. Mills overruled Alibrandi's claims that the contracts violate the state constitution. On several points, the commissioner found that the company lacked standing to raise some constitutional claims in its briefs. "Pouring rights" contracts appeared in New York in the late 1990s as cash-strapped districts sought new revenue sources. In the Fulton district's case, it accepted $495,000 from Coca-Cola and in return granted the beverage giant the exclusive right to sell its products on school grounds for 10 years. American Quality Beverages said it does not contest Coke's exclusive contract to supply soda for students. But the company said that contract should not extend to non-carbonated beverages sold to students _ American Quality Beverages markets the Z'lectra sports drink _ or to drinks sold at non-school community events on school property. Neither aspect of the Fulton contract with Coke faced competitive bidding from other beverage suppliers, said Ross Getman, an attorney representing American Quality Beverages. Coca-Cola did not return calls seeking comment on the case. A spokesman for the state Education Department declined to comment on the pending litigation. Coke and Pepsi officials say "pouring rights" contracts started with a $14 million, 10-year deal between Pepsi and Penn State University in 1992 that gave Pepsi the exclusive right to sell its soft drinks on the university's campuses and advertise on scoreboards and printed programs. In New York, two big Syracuse-area districts were among the first to sign exclusive beverage contracts in 1998. Both the Liverpool and North Syracuse districts got $1.5 million for their 10-year contracts with Coca-Cola. In its brief before Teresi, American Quality Beverages said that while beverage sales to students are important sources of revenue to suppliers, they also notice an increase in sales of the brands available in schools in surrounding communities. Though not involved in the case, New York State Dairy Foods supports the litigation, executive director Bruce Krupke said. "These agreements prevent milk producers from selling other beverages," said Krupke. "Recently, when vending machines selling milk have been put in schools, sales have taken off. Other beverage makers are just asking for the right to compete to sell healthful beverages without being required to promote soda to school children." Alibrandi noted that many districts curtail access to soda in schools because of concerns about student nutrition and obesity. Starting in Sept., soda won't be available in vending machines in New York City schools. _________________________________ Editorial from the Oneonta Star Thursday, Aug. 7, 2003 Let school soda deals fizzle out. When it comes right down to it, it's a matter of whether "pour" is better than "poor." The Oneonta School City District has a five-year "pouring contract" that it signed with Binghamton-based PepsiBottling Co. in 1999, Oneonta gets about $70,000 in guaranteed cash, commission fees and donated items, such as scoreboards. Pepsi, as its former slogan proclaimed, gets to be "the choice of a new generation" -- at least in Oneonta. Oneonta Superintendent James Piscitelli said the school district encourages the use of Pepsi products for nonschool community events on campus but doesn't mandate it. The district has Pepsi soda vending machines in faculty lounges and the company's juice machines at the high school, Piscitelli said. But now, a case before a state judge in Albany could invalidate the pouring contracts in someschool districts, including Oneonta's. When State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi rules on the constitutionality of a contract Coca-Cola signed with the Fulton school district in Oswego County, it could affirm or call into question the legality of about 70 similar "pouring rights" contracts in New York. The Fulton case comes down to whether there were competitive bids for noncarbonated beverage sales to students. Whether that affects Oneonta's deal with Pepsi is subject to speculation. What should not be in doubt, however, is what Oneonta's school board should do when the current contract runs out after the 2003-2004 school year. Forget about the money. Don't sign another contract. We certainly understand the financial strain that Piscitelli and the school board -- for that matter, every school board in the heartland of New York -- feels at budget time. With nothing but uncertainty coming from the state Legislature, increased demands to fill the special needs of students, BOCES programs, athletics and other extra-curricular activities, it's terribly inviting when a soda company offers relatively easy money. Funds generated through the current contract go into the district's general fund, Piscitelli said, andare applied to salaries, equipment and other supplies. "The district is always looking for creative ways to raise money other than taxes," he said, noting that $70,000 is equal to half a percent on the tax levy. Anything that lowers the local tax rate is certainly alluring. But it's more important to teach our children that their school district can't be bought. The kids should know that what appears in the vending machines is there because of its quality, not because it makes the school a few bucks. We would like to see milk machines in every school, both for the nutritional value and the benefit to local dairy farmers. Teresi's ruling may make the contract question moot, but then again, it may not. Piscitelli said he has not discussed another pouring contract with the school board. We suggest he do so, and that the answer be: "No, thanks." Capitolwire Q&A: Lawyer Getman says lawsuit is aimed at getting Coke out of schools. Monday Aug. 04, 2003 capitolwire.com article 8/4/2003 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALBANY, N.Y. (Aug. 4) - Ross Getman, a Syracuse lawyer, is representing American Quality Beverages, maker of a sports drink, and individual taxpayers who are suing the Fulton City School District, Coca Cola Bottling Co. and Education Commissioner Richard Mills over the school district's contract with Coke. The suit filed in state Supreme Court alleges the contract violates the constitution by barring makers of other drinks, including healthier beverages, from selling their products on school grounds. Capitolwire's Jane Gottlieb recently spoke to Getman, who is working pro bono on the case, about the suit and the effort to reduce the influence of soft drinks in schools nationwide. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ QUESTION: What does your lawsuit contend? GETMAN: It says the pouring rights contract at Fulton schools is illegal for numerous independent reasons, such as making public property available for the benefit of a private corporation. It's constitutional to permit the vendor to sell their goods for school users but it's not constitutional to permit a soda company to have exclusive license to sell to people using the property for non-school purposes. If you allow the Kiwanis to have a meeting on the grounds you have to allow the Rotary. These are very well-settled principles that the state Education Department has overlooked. If you are a Girl Scout group you can't pick up a case of healthy beverages and sell them. You have to buy them from Coca Cola under the Fulton contract. Last year, the Education Commissioner found that we -- the taxpayers, the parents the users of school property -- all lacked standing to challenge the contract. We also said this contract is illegal because it needs to be competitively bid and under education law the (soda) prices cannot in a given year exceed the increase in the cost of living. They can't just raise prices whenever they want. We also say they can't have a 10-year contract. There's a limit of five years under the education law. Also, the six-foot signs backlit have to be changed to non-commercial signage. It violates the state constitution by advertising on school property, which is non-commercial. QUESTION: You're taking this case at no pay. What is your aim? GETMAN: Our aim is to make sure that the school board will be free to follow Massachusetts and California and Maine and Illinois and Indiana in enacting a soda ban (at schools.) Philadelphia did it and so did Los Angeles. Buffalo elected to do so. So did New York City. In California there is a statewide vote Aug. 18, barring soda only to middle schools. But something is better than nothing. QUESTION: What is Fulton's contract with Coca Cola? GETMAN: The agreement provided them with $495,000 the first year (of a 10 year contract.). The commission that would be expected over 10 years would not be paid until the schools sold 1.7 million units of Coca Cola. They're given a financial interest in having more soda machines prominently placed. They (Coca Cola) sell juices in the machines. The teachers are not allowed to be involved in promotions. These agreements do not contemplate that. (How much are the commissions?) They'd make 35 percent on carbonated soda and 25 percent on drinks that are healthy. QUESTION: Where in New York State are soda sales actively promoted in schools? GETMAN: In Phoenix and Mexico (NY,) there were numerous promotional provisions in the contracts. But (taxpayers) brought petitions and that has spurred a lot of amendments weeding out certain provisions. In Syracuse, Liverpool, Greece, East Greenbush and in Buffalo there were petitions questioning the legality of the contracts and now one of them (Fulton) is being taken up for review as a test case. QUESTION: How important are soda sales for schools? GETMAN: It's worth $50,000 (a year) at Fulton. It's not coming from the soda company but from the students and their parents. Soda money built stadiums in Michael Bragman's district, North Syracuse. QUESTION: What will the implication of the court decision be elsewhere in the state? GETMAN: The Albany Supreme Court hears many important administrative appeals and what they say will be the law of the state and will control the legality of all pouring rights in the state. We hope under the ruling contracts would be void. It contemplates open bidding. QUESTION: How are soda companies responding to criticism over promoting themselves in schools? GETMAN: Now they're trying to respond to the clamor of childhood obesity. Pepsi is arguing that wild cherry soda is good for you. QUESTION: Any allies in the Legislature? GETMAN: We are disappointed by the Assemblyman Ortiz legislation that involves taxing soda and video tapes and DVDs half of 1 percent for an education fund. (Ortiz) will get the money, by having soda machines lining the halls. We are hoping (Congress) will pass a new statute that would save the slow drip drip drip of soda bans. QUESTION: What is your own opinion of soda? GETMAN: It's fine as a treat. We'll have one when I take my three-year-old for an ice cream. It's not something you teach your kids to expect all the time. ________________________________________________________________________ Spa City schools steered clear of soda company contracts BRENDAN McGARRY , The Saratogian 07/30/2003 SARATOGA SPRINGS - In 1996, the decision was made not to commercialize the Saratoga Springs City School District by entering an exclusive contract with any of the big-name soda companies, said Superintendent John MacFadden. "Once you open it up to them, it could run the gamut," he said. The contracts could bind a district to not only soda and machines, but food and beverage service, and book covers or advertisements on the sides of school buses, he said. "The pouring rights spilled over into all the rights to pour anything on school property," MacFadden said. Such is one of the issues in a lawsuit currently before state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi that could affect the constitutionality of similar "pouring rights" contracts in about 70 districts across the state. In the mid-1990s, the contracts were a hot topic at superintendent's meetings in the Capital Region as cash-strapped districts sought options for quick funds, MacFadden said. Even some local districts entered the exclusive agreements, such as Niskayuna, Scotia-Glenville and Schenectady, he said. American Quality Beverages, the Syracuse-based maker of the sports drink Z'lektra, claims that Coca-Cola's contract with the Fulton City School District, in Oswego County, requires a company to sell soda before it can compete to sell healthy beverages such as water, sports drinks, juices and milk, said Ross Getman, an attorney for the sports drink company. The state Education Department has repeatedly upheld the legality of "pouring rights" contracts. The Saratoga Springs district has refused to sell soda in schools to students, though the East Side and West Side recreation centers - which are owned by the district - have soda vending machines. Getman said the contract violates competitive-bidding laws, the state's constitution, education law and other regulations. He said allowing one company to serve the needs of non-school-related clubs, such as soccer leagues and booster clubs after school hours is patently illegal. ________________________________________________________________________ Syracuse Post-Standard, Letter to the Editor, Aug. 8, 2003, A-9 To The Editor: Values are amiss when 70 school districts in New York state accept a fistful of dollars and allow soda companies lucrative agreements to exploit youths with carbonated beverages. What a great way for a student to start the school day -- gulping a can of sugar-filled soda. Niles F. Bell Minoa ________________________________________________________________________ Shelly Oddo, 'Pouring rights' in schools being challenged, " Auburn Citizen, Aug. 11, 2003 Deidre Williams and Dick Dawson, "Drink Firm Challenges School Sales, Buffalo News, (Buffalo, NY), April 2, 2001 pB1. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Other stories have appeared in Albany Times Union (AP), Utica Observer-Dispatch, Herkimer Telegram, Finger Lakes, WCBS, WRVO, WSYR, WIXT, WXXA, WRTV5, Channel 9 TV ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Sam Graceffo, M.D., "The Pause That Regresses: Bubbles equal trouble when soda-pop contracts rule the schools," Syracuse New Times, More than 150 U.S. school districts have signed lucrative contracts with soft drink companies that allow placement of soda machines throughout their schools. Needless to say, this growing practice has met with much controversy. Under these contracts, either Pepsi or Coke obtain exclusive rights to sell their product; in return, the schools receive compensation. These sums, often more than $100,000, include bonuses for increased sales. The New Times' Sept. 8 cover story "Fizz Ed" detailed the local agreements hammered out between national beverage company giants Coca-Cola and PepsiCo with a number of Central New York school districts. Already on board with the bubbly are the Liverpool, East Syracuse-Minoa, Westhill and North Syracuse districts. The agreements entitle the beverage companies to exclusive access to students and faculty at participating schools. Aside from the carbonated products, the schools' vending machines include Coke and Pepsi-produced lines such as Fruitopia juices, Allsport and Powerade sports drinks. In defense of their position, school boards say that due to budget cuts, they desperately need the money for expenses such as computers, books and salaries. Furthermore, they point out that if soda machines are not available, students bring cans to school or go off campus to buy their favorite drinks. The school boards contend they are not harming the students in any way. In fact, they believe they are providing a better education with the new funds. Critics assert there is a great deal wrong with this soft drink policy. Soda provides empty sugar calories at a time when young people should be eating a varied diet. The consumption of milk, fruit and other healthful foods declines when soda is readily available. Twenty years ago youngsters consumed twice as much milk as soda. Today those figures are reversed. The alarming epidemic of teen obesity can, in part, be traced to soda consumption, which accounts for 8 percent of total calories. Critics also remind us that schools have a responsibility for providing good nutrition, since many students consume two meals each day at school. They bring up the problem of osteoporosis, a serious and debilitating condition responsible for 1.5 million fractures annually. Although this develops later in life, it is critical for teen girls to build up a stockpile of calcium in their bones with milk and similar calcium-rich foods. Soda companies are not simply focused on attempting to boost present-day sales by having exclusive right to sell in schools. More important to them is the effort to build lifetime brand loyalty. Teens drinking Pepsi each day at school for four years are likely to continue preferring Pepsi long after graduation. Few students complain about the ubiquitous soda machines. They say the sugar and caffeine help keep them awake in boring classes. With shorter lines at the machines than at the cafeteria, many would rather choose a quick and easy liquid lunch. Students whose parents impose soda restrictions at home can now quench their thirst at school. The soda "wars" have become a serious business, where some schools strictly impose a need for brand loyalty. Recently a student was suspended because he wore a Pepsi shirt on "Coke Appreciation Day." What has happened to our once hallowed institutions of learning? It is a sad state of affairs when loyalty to a soda product takes precedence over the need for education. Budgetary problems in numerous schools are undeniably serious, but this appears to be the wrong method to solve them. SCHOOLS SELL OUT KIDS WITH SODA "POURING RIGHTS'; SHAPING UP. (Editorial)(Letter to the Editor)(Editorial) The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY); 12/17/2003 To the Editor: The series on schools and obesity did not mention the role played by soda "pouring rights" agreements in our schools. Nor did it mention that the nationwide scheme promoting the sale of soda was launched here in 1998 (aside from a small smattering of agreements during several years prior) when Coca-Cola's political influence was put ahead of our children's health. In research published in the current issue of the Journal of Obesity Research ("The Sweetening of the World's Diet"), researchers at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health in Chapel Hill found that, on average, 80 percent of the additional calories consumed in added sugar comes from soft drinks and sugary fruit drinks - and that most of that is consumed by young people. Schools should stop promoting soda through illegal, exclusive, long-term, no-bid contracts that require a company sell soda even before it is allowed to compete to sell healthy beverages. The state of Maine's Education Department recently announced it will be ridding all of its public schools of soda. New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Buffalo already have done so. It is time for the leaders in the Syracuse-area school districts and throughout the country to get active. Ross E. Getman Syracuse
SCHOOLS' SODA DEALS CHALLENGED; FULTON'S BEVERAGE DEAL CHALLENGED; OUTCOME COULD AFFECT NEARLY 70 "POURING RIGHTS' CONTRACTS WITH SCHOOL DISTRICTS.(News) The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY); 7/29/2003 Byline: Fred A. Mohr Staff writer; The Associated Press contributed to this report. A legal challenge by a Syracuse beverage company to a "pouring rights" contract between Coca-Cola and the Fulton city school district could call into doubt similar lucrative agreements statewide. The lawsuit before state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi questions whether the contract between Coca-Cola and Fulton schools is unconstitutional. Fulton officials, meanwhile are scratching their heads, trying to deduce why they were singled out. The district has had no direct contact with American Quality Beverages, the company that filed the lawsuit, said David Gleason, Fulton's business manager. Said Gleason, "We have no idea why Fulton was chosen out of 70 schools that have these deals or whether there's anything unique about our contract." The 10-year contract, signed in 2000, allows Coca-Cola to sell its carbonated and fruit juice drinks exclusively in vending machines in the junior high and high school, Gleason said. The district received almost $500,000 in a lump sum payment, which covered most of the local share of an $11 million construction project. American Quality Beverages filed suit in State Supreme Court in Albany contending Coca-Cola's contract with the Fulton district effectively locked it out of supplying other drinks to the district, such as non-carbonated sports drinks and beverages for non-school events for the general public on school grounds. "We deserve the fundamental American right to do business with public schools, provided we participate in the bid process and we win the bid," said AQB President Larry Alibrandi. Teresi's ruling on the constitutionality of the contract between Coca-Cola and Fulton schools, by extension, is expected to affirm, or to call into question, the legality of some 70 similar "pouring rights" contracts in other districts around the state. Among the first districts to sign exclusive beverage contracts in 1998 were the Liverpool and Cicero-North Syracuse districts, which got $1.5 million each for their 10-year contracts with Coca-Cola. AQB said it does not contest Coke's exclusive contract to supply soda for students. But the company said that contract should not extend to non-carbonated beverages sold to students - American Quality Beverages markets the Z'lectra sports drink - or to drinks sold at non-school community events on school property. Gleason said there's nothing in their contract that prevents other companies from selling their products at school events or in its lunchroom. He said the school's sports booster group is free to sell whatever drinks it wants at games, and the district's food service buys its fruit juices from the lowest bidder. "Price and quality determines what's sold in the cafeteria," Gleason said. The lawsuit challenges last fall's decision by state Education Commissioner Richard Mills upholding the validity of the Fulton contract and a series of others that districts have reached in recent years with Coke and Pepsi. Mills overruled Alibrandi's claims that the contracts violate the state constitution. On several points, the commissioner found that the company lacked standing to raise some constitutional claims in its briefs. Coca-Cola did not return calls seeking comment on the case. A spokesman for the state Education Department declined to comment on the pending litigation. It is not known when Teresi will rule in the case. Gleason said he has not spoken with Coca-Cola officials and is unsure what effect a ruling could have on Fulton's contract. "At this point it's up to the commissioner and the judge to sort it out," he said. Other contracts Here's a look at agreements made by school districts in Central New York, giving soft-drink manufacturer exclusive rights to sell its products in district buildings: Cazenovia signed a deal with Coke for $150,000 and 30 percent of sales revenue. Central Square has an agreement with Coca-Cola that promises to pay the district at least $900,000. Cicero-North Syracuse School District has a $1.53 million pouring rights contract with Coca-Cola. DeRuyter signed with Coca-Cola, which paid for the school gymnasium scoreboard. East Syracuse-Minoa signed with Coca-Cola, in a deal that could be worth $700,000. Fayetteville-Manlius signed with Pepsi-Cola for $22,000 annually plus a 20 percent commission on sales. Liverpool has a deal with Coke worth about $1.5 million, with $900,000 up front. Madison-Oneida BOCES and a consortium of eight school districts in Madison and Oneida counties - Camden, Canastota, Hamilton, Madison, Oneida, Rome, Stockbridge Valley and Vernon-Verona-Sherrill - united to strike a deal with Pepsi. Mexico schools have a deal with Pepsi for $364,000 plus sales commissions. Phoenix signed with Pepsi for $27,000 a year plus a 35 percent commission on sales. Syracuse City School District has a contract with Pepsi for $270,000 a year plus 37 percent commissions on sales. Westhill signed with Pepsi for $17,000 a year plus a 35-percent commission on all sales. COPYRIGHT 2003 All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of The Herald Co. by the Gale Group, Inc.
Copyright 2001 The Buffalo News Buffalo News (New York) April 2, 2001 Monday, FINAL EDITION SECTION: LOCAL, Pg.B1
HEADLINE: DRINK FIRM CHALLENGES SCHOOL SALES BYLINE: DEIDRE WILLIAMS and DICK DAWSON; News Northtowns Bureau BODY: A small beverage company in Syracuse is challenging the legality of pouring rights agreements in four Erie County school districts. American Quality Beverages named the Maryvale, Cleveland Hill, Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda and Lancaster school districts in a petition filed with the state Department of Education. The Coca-Cola Bottling Group is named as well. Representatives for the small beverage company say the long-term contracts school districts have with soft-drink giants are illegal and unconstitutional for several reasons. "The contracts were acquired without the process of competitive bidding. The long-term contracts bind future groups from not serving soft drinks, and the contracts allow advertising on school property," said AQB attorney Ross E. Getman. AQB is a small, Syracuse-based manufacturer of sports drinks, lemonade and electrolyte-enhanced water, "things nutritionally engineered for schoolchildren, " Getman said. When the beverage company started selling sports drinks a few years ago, the key strategy was to enter school districts and offer healthy beverages. It worked for a while, but the company eventually was chased out of more than one school district once Coke and Pepsi entered the picture, Getman said. "AQB was vending in several school districts and were forced out by these big, non-exclusive deals offering upfront money," he said. Getman has filed similar petitions against school districts in the Syracuse and Albany areas. "In most places in the country, these types of deals are subject to a lot of controversy because they lead to more soda drinking by children," he said. Coca-Cola Co. said earlier this month that it will provide a larger variety of healthful drinks in machines, urge local bottlers to let schools limit the sale of soft drinks at lunch, ask bottlers to stop requiring exclusive "pouring contracts" with schools and put "noncommercial signage" on school vending machines. The move is unlikely to have a large effect on sales for the Atlanta-based soft-drink maker, which said middle and high school sales represent less than 1 percent of its total. Several soft-drink companies have contracts with school districts in Erie and Niagara counties that give them exclusive rights to sell their products in schools. In 1998, Lancaster's $1 million pouring rights contract -- spread out over 10 years -- with Coke was the first of its kind in the region. Within a year, Ken-Ton struck a 10-year deal for more than $1 million. And in 2000, Cleveland Hill and Maryvale also entered into pouring rights deals. "These agreements are flat out, squarely illegal for a number of different reasons," Getman said. "So any school district that enters into such an agreement, we seek to have it nulled and void. They can help us out by getting it right out of the gate." But officials from three of the local school districts said that if the contracts are illegal, then the Syracuse soft-drink company's dispute is with the state, not them. School Superintendents Joseph L. Girardi of Lancaster, Bruce E. Inglis of Cleveland Hill and Gary L. Brader of Maryvale said their districts adopted "model" contracts prepared by the state Education Department. And although the pouring rights pacts are long-term, they contain escape clauses so the decision of one school board to approve them is not binding on future boards, the superintendents noted.
|
|||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
