Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the paradoxical resistance of parent and private school food vendors to the paternalistic nature of school food policies. It develops the hypothesis that resistance, on the basis of them being “paternalistic”, is associated with implementers experiencing ethical breaches that contribute to frustration and low acceptability. This may be leading to accusations of paternalism and non-cooperation.

It takes a deontological perspective and uses Upshur’s (2002) public health ethics framework to explore the potential that parents involved in school fundraising and private school food vendors are experiencing ethical breaches associated with implementation of school food and beverage sales policies in the Canadian context.

Upshur’s (2002) harm principle highlighted how some implementers feel a loss of freedom in how they choose to function, which is perceived to be resulting in lost profits. Parents involved in fundraising activities may experience feelings of coercion. Opting out of fundraising may result in their children’s schools having fewer resources. Smaller private vendors are coerced through economic incentives while being bound by what products are available in the marketplace and the associated costs of items that comply with nutrition standards. Discussion around the reciprocity principle revealed implementers feel they are not adequately supported to implement. Transparency has been questioned where stakeholders report their perspectives are often not equally considered in decision making.

This is the first paper to explore the often cited resistance to the paternalistic nature of school food and beverage environment policies as an implementation barrier. Using a deontological ethical perspective offers an original way to discuss school food policies. This work offers potential leverage points at which policy-makers and practitioners may intervene to improve acceptability and contribute to more effective, consistent implementation.