However, in order to understand which food or beverage item is appropriate to have in schools, the policy splits them up into three categories; sell most, sell less and not permitted. As a result, the policy eliminates any food and beverages that are non-nutritional, and suggest that 80% of the food and beverages sold in schools must be up to the nutritional requirements (EatRight Ontario). This means that, foods and beverages that are high in fat, salt or sugar are non-nutritional and therefore not permitted in schools (People for Education). On the contrary, the Ontario School and Beverage policy is flexible and suggests that the policy allows the exception only when; students bring food and beverages from home and during 10 special-event days, where schools are free to serve and sell non-nutritional food and beverages (EatRight Ontario). However, this becomes problematic as the policy affects elementary and secondary schools differently; because while elementary school students are more likely to bring food from home, the exceptions of this policy has not yet considered that secondary students are more inclined to rely on cafeterias and vending machines for their lunches and snacks. As a result, it is clear that there are some concerns on the arrangement of the policy. .
The Concerns and Consequences of the Policy.
With no standard way or proof of organizing policies which can prevent concerns or consequences, the PPM 150 policy has inevitably raised three major concerns. The first is the concern of secondary students who claim that the PPM 150 policy fails to provide students with "choice." An example of this, is one high school student from Brampton, Ontario who speaks about his concerns and says; "how can the government expect students to make the right choices if the government themselves are taking away these choices?" (Baggage) Politician Rob Milligan, also agrees and states that, "cafeterias should give nutritional foods, but students should also have a choice in what they eat," (Babbage).