Centre’s guidelines propose restricting junk food in and around schools across the country
Necessary for children’s health
The Centre’s proposal to restrict the sale and consumption of junk food in and around schools across the country is an important measure in the fight against rising lifestyle diseases. In guidelines framed, the government proposes to restrict items such as chips, fries, colas, chocolates, burgers and samosas inside school canteens and within 50m of school premises. Simultaneously, it pitches for a uniform education policy to encourage children to switch over to a healthier diet. Given the enormity of the challenge, restricting junk food in schools is a necessary first step.
There’s no denying that children today are continuously bombarded with a range of processed food items that are high on unhealthy fats, sugar and salt. Fast food retailers devise clever marketing techniques to specifically target children and push their products. However, excessive consumption of junk food has led to a global childhood obesity problem. An estimated 17.6 million children under the age of five are overweight worldwide. This in turn has heightened the risk of cardiovascular diseases, Type-II diabetes, hypertension and certain forms of cancer. Several studies show a high intake of junk food diminishes a child’s mental growth and learning abilities. Add to this WHO’s recent recommendations advocating drastic cuts in sugar products for both children and adults.
Of course, it’s not possible to completely cut out children’s access to junk food. However, restricting unhealthy processed foods in schools is an effective way to educate children about their harmful effects. In this context, it’s welcome that the government’s guidelines prescribe a review of labelling regulations to categorise packaged food items according to their nutritional value. This will help parents make an informed choice about their children’s diet. Meanwhile, school health teams comprising teachers, parents and students can monitor strict implementation of the guidelines, making the fight against junk food comprehensive.
Who will monitor this? Chandan Nandy
Banning sale of junk food in schools is not a justifiable response to prevent child obesity and other associated risks like juvenile diabetes. Regardless of their level of hunger or preferences, children primarily consume foods, whether healthy or unhealthy, which are easily available or promoted in their immediate environments. Children’s environments at home and in neighbourhoods they live, where regulation levels are low, provide more opportunities than in schools to consume junk food, including aerated and sugary soft drinks, candy bars, burgers and fries. A ban on junk food cannot solve problems which originate in children’s homes and communities.
The ban will serve no purpose because there is nothing to suggest that the sale of unhealthy food or snacks within or outside school campuses can be adjudicated properly and followed strictly. Even if a ban is enforced, it will be a logistical nightmare for school authorities to check whether students sneak in junk food from home, which reinforces the point that childhood experiences and home environments profoundly affect children’s dietary habits. Besides, classifying what snacks constitute junk food, given India’s diverse cultures, is problematic. Do syrupy jalebis or deep fried samosas and bread pakoras qualify as junk food? Just because they are Indian snacks does not mean they are less harmful than conventional junk food.
Surely, school principals are not expected to abandon their primary responsibility of educating their pupils and focus instead on the time-consuming and pointless exercise of classifying what constitutes nutritious or unhealthy food. Instead of limiting students’ choices schools, and more importantly parents, should educate them on taking the right decisions about healthy eating habits. Children’s sweet tooth, for example, is notorious. Totally banning foods high in sugar for them – as that’s supposed to lead to obesity – is pointless. Such a ban is bound to be observed in the breach more than anything else.
The Centre’s proposal to restrict the sale and consumption of junk food in and around schools across the country is an important measure in the fight against rising lifestyle diseases. In guidelines framed, the government proposes to restrict items such as chips, fries, colas, chocolates, burgers and samosas inside school canteens and within 50m of school premises. Simultaneously, it pitches for a uniform education policy to encourage children to switch over to a healthier diet. Given the enormity of the challenge, restricting junk food in schools is a necessary first step.
There’s no denying that children today are continuously bombarded with a range of processed food items that are high on unhealthy fats, sugar and salt. Fast food retailers devise clever marketing techniques to specifically target children and push their products. However, excessive consumption of junk food has led to a global childhood obesity problem. An estimated 17.6 million children under the age of five are overweight worldwide. This in turn has heightened the risk of cardiovascular diseases, Type-II diabetes, hypertension and certain forms of cancer. Several studies show a high intake of junk food diminishes a child’s mental growth and learning abilities. Add to this WHO’s recent recommendations advocating drastic cuts in sugar products for both children and adults.
Of course, it’s not possible to completely cut out children’s access to junk food. However, restricting unhealthy processed foods in schools is an effective way to educate children about their harmful effects. In this context, it’s welcome that the government’s guidelines prescribe a review of labelling regulations to categorise packaged food items according to their nutritional value. This will help parents make an informed choice about their children’s diet. Meanwhile, school health teams comprising teachers, parents and students can monitor strict implementation of the guidelines, making the fight against junk food comprehensive.
Who will monitor this? Chandan Nandy
Banning sale of junk food in schools is not a justifiable response to prevent child obesity and other associated risks like juvenile diabetes. Regardless of their level of hunger or preferences, children primarily consume foods, whether healthy or unhealthy, which are easily available or promoted in their immediate environments. Children’s environments at home and in neighbourhoods they live, where regulation levels are low, provide more opportunities than in schools to consume junk food, including aerated and sugary soft drinks, candy bars, burgers and fries. A ban on junk food cannot solve problems which originate in children’s homes and communities.
The ban will serve no purpose because there is nothing to suggest that the sale of unhealthy food or snacks within or outside school campuses can be adjudicated properly and followed strictly. Even if a ban is enforced, it will be a logistical nightmare for school authorities to check whether students sneak in junk food from home, which reinforces the point that childhood experiences and home environments profoundly affect children’s dietary habits. Besides, classifying what snacks constitute junk food, given India’s diverse cultures, is problematic. Do syrupy jalebis or deep fried samosas and bread pakoras qualify as junk food? Just because they are Indian snacks does not mean they are less harmful than conventional junk food.
Surely, school principals are not expected to abandon their primary responsibility of educating their pupils and focus instead on the time-consuming and pointless exercise of classifying what constitutes nutritious or unhealthy food. Instead of limiting students’ choices schools, and more importantly parents, should educate them on taking the right decisions about healthy eating habits. Children’s sweet tooth, for example, is notorious. Totally banning foods high in sugar for them – as that’s supposed to lead to obesity – is pointless. Such a ban is bound to be observed in the breach more than anything else.
