About two years back the Indian Ministry for Health and Family Welfare decided to have 'junk food' such as colas , carbonated drinks, pizza's, burgers/hot dogs, chips/fries etc from school and college canteens. It was pointed out that the consumption of such products led to diet related non-communicable diseases among the youth. The consumption and availability of tobacco products, on campuses , was also banned. Many consumer organizations are also for banning junk food advertisements that are targeted at children.
The basis for such a paternalistic type of regulation seems to be that children of school going age and also of colleges are not rational. Their consumption habits are based on a short term perspective and does not consider the long term implications such as obesity and other diseases which can possibly affect the quality of life and also the longevity of life. The consumption of junk food could also be addictive making it difficult for the child to break the habit. hence the government rationalizes that it is best to ban such products in places where children and college going youth frequent - the canteen.
Two issues need to be discussed at this stage. Firstly the assumption that the targeted consumers are not rational. It is well established that children are easily influenced by emotional advertisements. They are also not well placed to understand the implications of their consumption habits. Hence there is the necessity for regulation. Since parental regulation is not working you need the government to step in. But are parents not supposed to know the ills of such consumption habits? From discussions in the Indian media ,parents are faulted for using junk food as a 'hassle free' way of getting their children to eat! Working parents often find it easy to use packaged food which appeals to the taste buds of the young ones. This seems like a rational choice for parents!! They make a choice and since they are adults they should know better than their children about the possible dangers of junk food. Are parents trading off rationally or do they too suffer from ignorance and advertisement impact? Whichever way you read it, parents need some regulating and educating too!! In one case it is irrational behavior and in the other it is rational behavior that needs to be regulated.
But banning junk food from canteens may not prevent parents from sending it from home. Hence the need to alter parents behavior by educating them. Schools appear to be one step ahead - some have banned children from consuming junk food in school premises. This further constrains the choices for parents.
How do such bans work ? Are they effective enough in controlling consumption choices. A simple ban might serve to alter only the shape of the budget line but an awareness program and labeling of food products might alter even the indifference curve. Such alterations would determine the effectiveness of the government policy.
The next issue is whether only western junk food qualifies for banning. Are our local variants such as fried bondas or pakoras, chaats , samosas etc also junk food? Such food is also available in canteens and might just lead to a substitution effect.
What about college going youth? Are they also assumed to behave irrationally? Or is their choice a trade -off?The short term preferences for taste and economising on time might just prevail over the long term cost of poor health and drop in longevity. Would a ban have a similar impact on the budget line? Probably not as large as in the case of school going children who do not have too many options for purchasing. A college youth might just shift his purchase to a nearby outlet.
This option was available for tobacco consumption too. Probably realizing that strong addictive behavior needed stronger action tobacco sale was banned for 100 yards around educational institutions for youth below 18 years. See link http://www.hinduonnet.com/2009/06/30/stories/2009063060040400.htm
This has a catch - it depends on the effectiveness of enforcement. Given our stretched police force it is unlikely that they would spend too much time enforcing such laws. Their own rational behaviour would lead them to devote their scarce time for issues which have a higher marginal benefit (social or private ?). So , the effectiveness of such a ban might be weak. Here too a policy which alters preferences and not just costs through taxes and inconvenience effect may be important.
But, since the idea is to impact the budget line for junk food why not just have a higher tax? This again depends on demand elasticities. It is tough to implement a tax policy on the informal sector which provides 'desi - junk'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
84 comments:
I believe that placing a ban on consumption of junk food was not the right step as the premises on which it was based were wrong.
Firstly, the ban only extended to western types of junk food, and not to our very own pakoras, samosas and other cholestrol laden treats. By this the purpose of the ban is defeated in itself, and starts to assume political significance.
Secondly, it is more about imbibing the correct values in children which is the job of the parents. By banning junk foods, it may just relapse by increasing the kids demand for it outside of school premises, especailly in the case of college goers, who have the freedom to just go out to have a smoke or a bite.
Abhinav Sekhri
1701
i think the ban on the sale nad consumption of "junk food" is misplaced,not only dors it semm to be inefficient but also intrusive.As individuals, i think people have the intellect with themselves to decide what is harmful for their health and what is not ,also the implementation of such a ban seems a practical impossibility . you can't expect thet law enforcement agencies to devote their alrady stretched workforce to go about checking the sale and consumption of junk food . also i think the govt. has failed to take into consideration the great amount of freedom of choice that we enjoy in this age of consumerism;another lacunae is the omission of western foods .
so i think that this ban will not serve its purpose by any stretch of imagination!
It is the government's mandate to regulate issues which concern public policy.In this light the ban on tobacco in the vicinity of schools is a good step. In the case of junk food there are some complications :
1. Is the government right in limiting consumer's choice ?
2. Is the step going to have the effect it aims to produce?
3. Why does this have to be a government initiative?
I feel that the government is limiting consumer choice and this is not a healthy trend - the govt. calling the shots on what you can and cannot buy/eat/read/drive/do -is not acceptable except when it's something that threatens society like say dynamite.
As for the desired effect , it can be achieved by regulating producers rather than consumers - by taxing food containing higher levels of cholesterol, making nutrients content info mandatory and by setting up a system to grade food based on its "junk" quotient. This way, we give the consumers the info they need to make informed choices .This could run parallel to an extensive media campaign against junk food. This is essential because it isn't feasible to bring producers of desi junk food(which has conveniently been left out of the current ban!) under the taxation and nutrient-info regulation net. Over and above this, the govt. could encourage schools to make their canteen junk food free. In this suggestion, I assume that schools, seen as character and lifestyle building institutions, will rise above the issue of economic losses to their canteens. :D
i feel that the ban on junk food is a clamp on conusmer choice and is restricting a consumer's tastes and preferences. It is upto an individual to decide what is good for him and not the government to police all aspects of consumer behaviour. as far as public policy is concerened, the government definitely has a role to play and that is why the tobacco ban is in the positive direction, unlike junk food which is more limited to the personal sphere. having said this, i feel that all this learning should start from home, be it to not consume tobacco or junk food. the ban on junk food may not produce the desired result as students will always find a way to consume the same.
the governemnt needs to go about this in a systematic way. it makes sense to regualate the producers and not consumers as ramyaa said. Detailed product information should be made available and taxes on junk food should be increased. also it is not right to leave out "desi" junk food from the ban
the very idea of restrictions seem to flawed for many reasons.
1)effective control need strict enforcement,which in this current context seems qite impossible.
2)also inorder to achieve the larger aim of addressing health concerns restrictions in a constrained environment will not do any good,the life of a student is not limited to the boundaries of a school or its working hours,inorder to achieve its stated objective of addressing health concerns effective communication of its dangers seem a more practical and sensible approach.
well then if it fails to achieve its primary objective the restriction fails to stand ground.
3)the best and most practical approach is education about the consequences,but here it should not be limited to the spectrum of children alone but also to parents because they are the ones who can really call the shots(maybe limited in one way,but certainly more than that of the government)
-The ban on 'junk food' in school and college canteens is a welcome first step. Most school going children can not make informed decisions, hence regulating their consumption is only appropriate.The ban can be justified in terms of the expected health benefits and the reduced costs of health care.
But the ban in itself will not be able to produce the desired effect.
-It needs to be buttressed by a more holistic and longterm strategy.
Taxing packaged 'junk' food is one of the options. But the 'desi' fast food industry is unorganized and cottage in nature. Thus, difficult to tax.
The government needs to look at sustained mass awareness campaigns to run in parallel with the ban in schools and colleges. The Indian version of junk food is often ignored. The society as a whole needs to be made aware of the hazardous effects of junk food, which are usually not immediately visible.
- On the question of if limiting consumer choice is a healthy trend or not:
I think the government is not committing any excesses by banning junk food in schools and colleges.
If a certain section of society is not able to make a make a rational choice, it is only correct to create conditions that would influence them in making the right choice.If the junk food market is allowed to proliferate without checks, the economic and social costs will be huge. Also, the ban on junk food is not absolute. You can always buy it elsewhere or at a high price, as the situation may be.
But the bottom line is that the ban unsupported will not serve any purpose.
i say that banning junk food in colleges sayin collegegoers are not rational enough is not right .it can be said for schoolgoing children but collegegoers r mostly above 18 thus adults and have the right to make thier own choices as they r rational enough.and even when a ban is imposed it is not executed properly and ppl end up eating the same junk food and detroitating thier health so if gov is serious about the ban it should appoint health inspectors to inspect from time to time if the ban is being imposed uniformly and it should also make available healthier and cheaper substitutes bcoz in the absence of it the purpose of the ban is defeated
i believe banning junk food is not right, i mean by banning in colleges and in schools you cant expect that a child will not eat it or will change his demand for junk food.On the other hand there is no ban on indian junk food which i think is more dangerous. its more depend upon parents to inculcate habbits of good food in their child. Here the main thing is that its not the child but its the parents on whom some regulations be made.
Neeraj Vyas
1732
The ban on junk food by the Indian Ministry for Health and Family Welfare, though done with a good intention, is badly thought out. There are gaping holes in this method to achieve a 'healthy' future.
First, simply banning it in the premises of educational institutions is not a solution to stopping children and youth from consuming junk food. On the other hand, it will only make them crave for it more once they are outside.
Second, the government should try to change the mindset of the youth rather than deprive them of junk food. Classes on healthy eating, diet and exercise should be given equal importance. A strong media campaign against consumption of junk food will also be helpful.
Third, the government should focus on the root of the problem (which is manufacturing of these products) and tax them heavily. This will reduce the number of junk food products entering the market, thus giving people no choice but to consume healthier food.
Fourth, not banning Indian sweets and savouries seems like an attempt to promote the indian sweets and savoury industry rather than have a healthier population.
No matter what the intention behind the ban is, be it political or otherwise, the government is seriously flawed in their approach. Better planning and implementation is of the utmost importance.
I beg to differ a bit from what my fellow friends are saying. I think the ban is perfectly justified especially in the case of school going children. A ban on "junk" food in school certainly helps. Such a ban would compel children to go for other substitutes which are much healthier. For example, a soft drink lover would consume more of flavoured milk or juices which are of the same price and much healthier. This also develops in them a "taste" for the same. I would also refute the argument that this would not help as the children would buy the "junk" stuff from outside. Not many children go specially to the market to buy such things when they are back from schools as other things are available at home to consume. Similar restrictions were applicable to us when I was at school. It actually reduced my longing for cola drinks and a few fried snacks. I agree that this would not completely change the tastes of consumers but a considerable change can be expected. Also, I second the views of the article which proposes educating the parents in this regard. One cannot expect children to restrain from certain practices which the parents do not emphasize upon quitting.
Rishabh Kapur
1751
In response , I would like to corroborate the view that banning junk food on campus is unwelcome.
To begin with, the term junk food has no comprehensive and objective definition or criterion to classify as junk food or otherwise and hence it is difficult to foresee what food qualifies for a ban.
Secondly the assumption that children and their parents are irrational or need regulation as the case maybe is flimsy. Parents are aware and concerned about the health of their wards and hence regulate their children’s consumption patterns and the number of times they frequent the canteen.in this regard schools are also well aware of what type of food serves their children’s needs in the best way and certainly keep in mind the health factor.
As the article also mentions, implementing the law will be a mammoth task and too much of a “trade off” on the part of the “overstretched"law enforcement authority when they focus on implementation across campuses.
Alternate options:
Sufficient awareness among children.
Regulation in the school canteens for making their menu more healthy and incentives to consume healthy food.
Explicitly project calorie details on the packets.
In conclusion, individual responsibility and freedom to make choices must be given sufficient importance and recognition of the fact that consumers are capable of regulating behavior as basic as choice of food coupled with certain “soft sell” mechanisms will serve the purpose better.
Nayana Tara
1731
The need to implement the anti-tobacco laws with higher efficiency can not stated enough. If the statistics from "The Hindu" article are anything to go by, we can conclude that unless and until all possible measures to implement the aforementioned laws are taken, we may never see even a reduction in the consumption of tobacco by the adolescents, let alone the public at large.
Having said that, one should not ignore the fact that more than one factor contributes to the existence of this ever-persistent social menace. I wish to agree with the author on the point he makes about the rationality of decisions assumed by parents in general. In the present scenario of teenagers demanding for more than what they require(and also getting the same from their "altruistic" parents), consumption of not just tobacco, but even other "not-so-good-for-health" commodities will see their demand curve seeing all sort of fluctuations every now and then. Lets face it. We learn from our parents, teachers, peers - basically form our surroundings at large, and unless all of us make a collective attempt to bring in a change for our own good, we will have to put up with this menace.
Keerthivas Giri.
1717.
consumption of junk food by school students and college goers is indeed a serious issue that requires effective counter measures.Banning addictive tobacco products and unhealthy junk foods in school premises definitely will bear fruit if the school authorities are ready to go the extra mile in enforcing the ban.Children do need the better judgement of our collective conscience in inculcating a healthy diet.But in the case of college goers this could turn out to be counter productive.They could see the measure as a threat to their new found freedom and this might induce them to consume more.Therefore we need to target their economic constraints.If we can provide them with cheaper and healthier alternatives that will place them comfortably within their budget any ratonal minded person will opt for that.It will be upto the college authorities to ensure that the right kind of food stalls are promoted within the campus and in the college neighbourhood.
I believe that the ban on junk food is justified. The youth are immature and cannot take a rational decision on their own. Junk food severely affects the general health level in the society.But it is also important that the parents inculcate healthy eating habits in their wards.This would not only be healthier for the children but also enable them to understand the rationale behind such a ban.It would also prevent them from going outside the campus to eat fast food. It would also make the task of the law enforcing agencies less cumbersome.
As far as the 'desi' fast food is concerned, an attempt should be made to create a balance between the employment opportunities of the household sector and the health concerns of the children.
Placing a ban on the consumption of junk food only within the campus is not really going to help curb its consumption.The ban itself contains several fallacies,
Firstly,it only extends to western junk food,like pizza,burgers,etc, and doesnot include Indian junk food like pakoras and other things.So in reality it is not actually curbing the consumption of junk food.Secondly,the students always have access to junk food outside the campus.So,the only way to reduce its consumption is to spread awareness and educate peoplke about the ill effects of junk food.
Firstly, I think the govt. needs to redefine 'junk' food, and include some of the 'desi' street snacks which are as detrimental to health.
I think the ban on junk foods in school premises is a good step taken by the government, but it should apply to children till the age of 12-13 (middle school) only.
I am in favour of the ban extending to the children studying in lower classes, because howmuchever sensible or didactic their parents maybe in communicating to them about junk foods, they will have a strong attraction towards these items due to their appeal.
I think above this age is the time when they should begin to develop their own sensibilities, and should be able to understand the real harm of over-consumption of such types of foods themselves.Here, ofcourse I'm assuming that their parents themselves are aware of the future impacts of these products. Also, the ban would not effective on this age group, as they can always consume junk foods from a vendor outside the school. Hence, what will work is a clear understanding of the long-term harms which can lead to self-regulation.
I think even the idea of extending the ban to college going students is just short of ridiculous!
The ban on Tobacco and its products is a welcome step for all age-gropus, as its effects passively extend to the society as well. I agree, the enforcement of the 100 feet ban seems a thin possibility, and some sort of a change in policy is needed to incorporate this issue. Again the focus should be to appeal to the rationale of the consumer, as a mere ban alone would only lead to the consumer looking at alternative vendors.
shreya
1756
Ban on consumption of junk food on campus stems from the unwarranted assumption on the part of government that it is the custodian for the health and wellbeing of its citizens. Before taking on the real issues, I must assert that this amounts to rubbishing the consumer prudence and the intrinsic right of a free willed individual to make choices for himself which are not detrimental to others interests. More than the issue it is the government high handedness that stares at us. Now the question of limiting the consumer choice: if the government has any sensibilities at all, then it must aim to strike at the roots of the issue rather than trying to shake the giant. Irrespective of whether the commodity is junk food or tobacco,the strategy must be to bring about long term changes in consumptions of the targeted group of consumers(which must also be consensual).Since there is already a consensus that the two commodities are not conducive to good health, government shouldnt find the alternate stategies difficult to execute. The finest example would be that of cuba which is the 'master producer of cigars'. the government has worked hard to keep children away from tobacco usage, has worked on improving quality of cigars and has launched campaigns for the restrained\moderate use of tobacco.And after all this the average age of cubans is 77.8yrs!! In indian context any ban on junk food or tobacco would first hit the small scale producers and native entrepreneurs than the large marketing firms and retail giants. Students dont mind walking an extra mile to fetch their favourite take away but the man dislodged from his stall is at the receiving end of all this foolhardiness. So it would be good switch to a desirable option than to leave consumers and government feeling miffy about each other.
I think the government should look into the revenue raised from taxing these junk foods and the potential costs of curing/ trying to prevent the medical problems caused due to the consumption of excessive junk foods. The aim should be simple, the junk food should pay for the medical cost it will create in the future. as these taxes will be passed on to the consumers, the consumer will be investing in his healthcare costs in the future.
Also, instead of banning such goods, it would make more sense to encourage healthier substitutes.
I support the Indian governments declaration,to ban these junk food articles.
In the upcoming year
2010,according to World Health Organization report more than 2 billion children would be suffering from obesity and related problems,which in their upcoming life will result in the form of diseases like hypertension, & diabetes.
So Indian government's order to ban the junk food in schools & colleges is a good decision to check the consumptions of junk food.
At all the responsibilities lies with the parents and school administration as the child spends about 8 hours in school and rest at home.The school can provide the nutritious and healthy food instead of burgers & pizzas.
Parents also have awide role to play in helping their children to get out of these bad habits of eating junk stuff.
If everyone performs his duty well then the problem can be reduced to much extent.
Suvesh kumar singh
Although the government has the peoples' good interests at heart, I think that their efforts to regulate consumer behaviour by banning consumtion of junk food on campuses will go down the drain.
Firstly, people have the right to choose what they should or should not have and the government has no right to force them into following their rules. Moreover, the fact that only 'western' junk food is banned and not the Indian varieties is wrong on the government's part.
Also the ban does not guarantee that students will not consume junk food as they will just resort to having it outside the campus, especially as their parents do not mind it.
The government should stop trying to impose their will on people and should focus on spreading awareness on the possible consequences of consuming junk food and smoking.
Aparajita
1706
I beleive that the government's decision to ban junk foods is quite welcoming. It will not only lead to a shift towards more consumption of healthier foods but will also help in the reduction of the frequency of the major medicals problems, such as diabetes,obesity & blood pressure problems, that are prevalent nowadays.
I do beleive that the ban is a bit intrusive, but in a positive way. It's the government's responsibility to do everything in its power to ensure the well being of the citizens, and the above mentioned ban is one such step. Though how strictly & efficiently it is implemented is yet to be seen. If the parents turn a blind eye towards such health hazards then it becomes the duty of the government authorities to educate them.
Though I concur with Abhinav's view of the whole premises on which the ban is placed as being fallacious, We certainly cannot overlook the reduction in the consumption that has resulted thereof. For instance, how many of us would be willing to go through the trouble of walking till the Nagarbhavi main road for a packet of chips or a bottle of cola when substitutes such as a bun or fruit juice are readily available on campus?
Also, imbibing healthy eating habits at home and school alike from a young age is sure to have a huge impact on the levels of consumption over the years.
The ban, however is not an unabridged solution for junk food consumption to be nipped in the bud as it is readily available outside and most children have easy access to these while at home, which is where the role of parents in educating children assumes importance.
Higher tax does sound like a workable solution but cannot be instrumental in curbing consumption to a large extent. Swanky schools that tie up with fast food chains should be penalized heavily for better enforcement of the ban. The bottom line is that junk food is more of a personal choice and should be left to be so as opposed to products such as tobacco.
Placing the ban is totally justified as the manifestations which the children or even youth ultimately suffer can be curtailed only if there is restriction by external stimulus such as the government because they are not strong enough to remain within the limit , be it desires or the budget
the fragile as well as fickle minds are not able to abstain themselves from something that is so totally in
hence its a welcome move by the government to ban western junk food .
moreover as regarding the pakodas and samosas , they have been in the our culture since times immemorial
and it would be quite difficult to remove them from the society in one go
but nonetheless the government has made itself quite clear that junk food's got to go
I think that, in perceiving children and parents who are susceptible to advertisements as irrational, the government seems to be assuming that the rational consumer is blind to externalities. This is not always the case as in such a situation the whole rationality behind the industry of advertisement would be falsified.
Considering that it was Keynes himself who said that in the long run everyone is dead, short term perspective need not necessarily be dealt with through a blanket ban.While junk food does lead to obesity, total abstinence is not necessary to check this problem.
Thus the government should consider alternatives that would discourage junk food and promote healthier ones while not completely intruding on the choice of children to consume a permissible amount of junk food.
Some of those alternatives would be:
1.The government can influence "susceptible" consumers through its own advertisements and awareness programmes.
2.It can instruct school authorities to place a cap on the no. of times children may consume junk food in a week through a coupon system
3. It can subsidize healthy food and increase taxes on junk food
4. It can use advertisement as a positive tool and give incentives for attractive , child- friendly marketing of nutritious food.
In short the government must do all it can to ensure that it does not cross the boundaries of reasonable restriction of choice
The short-term regulations of the govt.on banning "western junk food" rather than long-term strategies to actually address the issue is a glaring example of the inappropriate policy implementation. Even tobacco ban has been inefficient as one can still find consumed cigarette butts in every corner.How is the govt. justified in deciding that only western junk food is unhealthy and Indian masala food as pani-puri, samosas are healthy and do not lead to obesity ? In our generation, there is an increasing indifference to the healthy food but this problem cannot be addressed by ban.The taste buds need to be suited to the healthy food which the govt. ,if seriously bothered, could provide in the canteens.Initially, it would lead to some problems but with time,the students would be able to appreciate the efforts and the canteens would atleast be able to reach " a no profit-no-loss situation".The govt. could, by levying taxes on producers discourage such unhealthy consumption as the burden of tax would be shifted to the consumers.
The govt. also needs to reconsider the issue of tobacco consumption keeping in mind the economic perspective.
the government has placed the ban with a good intention, but i do not see it working and seriously doubt how effective it has been.
-firstly i do not agree with the assumption that the children and college going students that are being talked about are irrational.They do know about the harmful effects of junk food, and in the end it is about making a personal choice.I believe that a person must know the effects(good or bad) of any product and then must be given the freedom to exercise his right of choice.
-secondly,as far as i have seen, the canteens usually(even after the official ban)do stock soft drinks and colas(the students know about those, the authorities dont) which basically means that the implementation is not effective and the banned materials are actually stocked and bought by the students.
-i feel that students will anyway be able to buy these banned substances outside the campus,so maybe banning them on campus does not make much sense.
though i do see this ban as encroaching on the right to choice of the individuals and do not think it has been implemented effectively, i do feel that this ban may have been effective in reducing the consumption of junk food,but to a small extent.
Taxing junk food has been mentioned as an alternative in the last paragraph. I think that would be preferable to banning junk food altogether. The same principle as the increase in cigarette and bidi tax discussed in class earlier can be applied in the case of junk food. In this manner, consumer choice is not being limited and at the same time, the consumer is forced to rethink the utility he derives out of consumption of junk food.
Vikram
I think that a ban on sale and consumption of "Junk food"and"Tobbaco" was not a matured decision collage students are enough matured to decide what should they eat and what should they not eat and if govt. will ban it in collage canteen they can also purchase it from outside the collage than what is the effect of ban? as par my view it should be left on student's own conscious that what he is consumig is good for him or not.
If we see it in terms of school children it doesn't seems to be work there also.As disucussed in article if "Junk food" is banned in canteens thier parents are providing it so,need is here to counsel parents.
Siddharth Singh Shekhawat
1757
According to me this government policy will work only to some extent.This bans junk food only in school and college canteens.But this will not prevent them from going to some other places to eat junk food.So it will not decrease the health related problems.
In the case of school children,parents themselves give junk food.So it will not affect even if junk food is banned in canteens.
I think taxing junk food will be good option.As Vikram said,like the case of bidis and cigarettes,we can also apply it to junk food.
junk food consumption or consumption of anything for that matter is a matter of personal choice. regulating junk food in primary school where the individual's choice is influenced by external factors (read: parents, tv ads etc) considering they haven't yet formulated strong personal opinions is acceptable but if you're giving a group of people, adults, freedom of choice to the extent of choosing the leader of a country ie voting then im quite sure they're competent enough to choose what they want to eat after weighing the pros and cons.
same goes with cigarettes-
no pictorial warnings or warnings on boxes which say smoking kills are going to deter a smoker- the reason being he knows its going to kill him but in his opinion the pros do NOT outweigh the cons.
it ma make a small differnce but not a very noticeable one in my opinion.
First of all I think the Govt. can't really do anything about consumption of junk food just by placing a BAN on its sale,as placing a BAN on its sale does nt mean its a BAN on its consumption.
Moreover a step like this on the part of the Government will only increase the sale of the Desi Junks i.e, increase the demand of it,not contribute towards the Health of the youth..
Secondly it is the parents who can actually make an contribution towards by helping their children to develop a good food habit from the very beginning....because a step as such will not at all contribute towards the health,as there are many shop or even "Delivary on call" system available..
Thirdly when it comes to Tobacco Consumption in the Campus,it should be strictly banned for the disciplinary purpose,but not for health..because the students always have a choice of going out of the campus and smoke..
Therefore I strongly support with the article that The Demand Graph may change its shape due to this BAN but the choice of the customer i.e,the indifference curve will not really change until and unless the awareness is grown among the young sters...
But after such Ban,I think it would be Best to set up a Fast Food Corner just outside the Campus of a renouned School or College for anyone from the economic point of it!!!!!!!!
The ban on junk foods in school and college canteens has serious implementation problems due to restricted enforceability and consumer demand.The govt does not have a free hand in implementing this ban in the privately owned/run schools.Also,the demand from the student or the assumed irrational consumer is too much to be neglected by the canteens. The schools ,in the first place,should provide for the required healthier snacks and food in the canteens and not act as agents or advertisers of western junk food producers.The govt acting as a consumer choice regulator is certainly not in favour of the market or consumers unless there is an urgent need to do so.The best it can do is to direct the school autorities to tax the producers of junk food iterested to sell thier products in the canteens.As far as the tobacco consumption is concerned,I feel that given the increased mobility of the school and college-goers and the bulging pockets with pocket money are potent enough to outdo the measures taken by the govt.The govt cannot be expected to act as a substitute for the role of a parent.
I do not agree to the argument of "rationality". I think there are certain things which come to an individual (School going children or college students in this case) through experience of repercussions associated. If you consider a young individual "irrational" enough not to judge the ill effects of junk food, then even the bans might not help tackle this, because the so called "irrational" young crowd will be more inclined towards fulfilling its taste liking by any means. Irrespective of the placement of a ban, a majority of them might as well devise new ways of getting junk food,e.g.-having a deal with the Canteen owner,paying him some "extra" to get some junk food surreptitiously. Also, as far as the parental control is concerned, it does matter in case of school going children but college students might as well have a "cost benefit analysis" of the scenario and as soon as the chances of getting caught decrease, they might as well end up having junk food.
And as Sekhri said, the fact that the ban does not extend to our own category of junk food, the point of having such a ban seems useless.
I believe that while the government has imposed the ban out of some sense of paternal care, the ban on junk food is not very effective for the following reasons:
1. People who want junk food will not mind going that extra bit to get it.
2. Young students are not fools. They are fully aware of the impact junk food has on one's health,and may choose to eat junk food in lesser quantities and less frequently. It is unfair to deny them the choice.
3. Junk food and smoking can't be compared because smoking harms the people around the smoker as well whereas having junk food is an individual decision.
Having said that, I also think that the ban has been partially effective. It has provide us with healthier alternatives to junk food and colas such as juices and other snacks, which many of us ahve come to enjoy and maybe even prefer to colas.
However, I still think that we should be given the freedom to choose what we want to eat and that while the government has our best interests at heart, we are fully capable of making informed decisions about our eating habits, if not much else.
I think what could help would be putting a warning on high-cholestrol and trans-fat containing foods about the health effects of consuming such things.
Megha - 1726
There is absolutely no doubt, that the consumption of "junk food" amounts to certain health problems. Especially the consumption of "junk food" like colas, pizza's etc leads to obesity and other health problems in the youth. But the governments action of banning the junk food from the canteen of colleges and schools in order to restrict the consumption rate among certain individuals is not a solution to the problem. The govenment puts forth the point that the consumption habits are based on a short term perspective and the young individuals do not consider the long term implications. A regulation of this sort may not at all be productive as the government cannot enforce it's decisions on consumers, if at all the ban is imposed people will look for substitutes and would derive utility from consuming them. Also rational behaviour of consumers cannot be judged from their age group as most who consume colas or pizza's know for that matter that it has certain bad effect on their body in the long run. Parents also know that "junk food" cannot replace a balanced diet that their children require and hence they do not encourage them to have it on a daily basis. Hence the govenments point realting to the rational/irrational behaviour is not true.
Also the government fails to notify samosas, chaats as "junk food" as they can also act as substitutes for colas, pizza's etc. Therefore the government should think back on it's decision on regulating consumer behaviour.
Amit Anand
1703
It is possible that the ban on 'junk food' might be a positive step with regard to schoolgoing children. However, I feel that aiding in the reduction in consumption of such food should be a conscious step taken by the schools and parents, including making children aware of the long and short term ill-effects of such commodities. The interference of the ministry is best avoided here.
But in connection with tobacco products, the government has taken the right step because the hazards of passive smoking as well as the easy impressionability on youth can prove to be detrimental to the interests of the society. Here too, though, the college students should be given more freedom than schoolgoing kids to make their own choices.
The step to ban 'junk food' in canteens of colleges seems absurd. This is because most college students are adults who can make their own choices. It seems awkward that a person who is allowed to decide the future of his/her country through a vote is not allowed to decide his/her health priorities.
The differentiation of 'junk food' on the basis of origin, desi or otherwise, as made by this measure stinks of double standards.
If, however it has been decided that reduction of demand is necessary by any means, I am of the opinion that a ban is more effective than an increase in taxes because of the inelastic and addictive nature of food and tobacco consumption. This inelastic nature makes the changes in the budget line and indifference curves less effective than usual.
Srikanth V
roll no. 1763
I state it for sure that govt's ban on junk food in schools and colleges is entirely a commendable step.As one of my pals earlier stated that these junk items are, i should say,key to many diseases like obesity,hypertension,etc. which are already consuming lives of many youngsters.
Leaving the world behind,I would rather like to take my example.During our break time the usual tendency of every student like me is to rush to canteen and have some refreshment after the rigorous economics class.As NLSIU,complying with Govt's orders, have banned the junk food and colas, so we all are forced to depend on other nutritious items like juices and other eatables which prevent us from consuming the so called junk food.
And in my opinion there is no comparison between a hamburger and an Indian samosa.So no issue of analogy btw western and Indian junk arises.
The issue of contention regardind students going outside the campus is totally a futile argument.Though i agree that some students will preferably do so but its deterrant effect is much more pronounced as students wont prefer leaving the campus every now and then. So I completely endorse the ban imposed by the Govt.
Vishav Gupta
1778
the purpose for which the government has put this ban is not served for two reasons-
1.banning them only on campus will reduce their consumption for a short duration as "junk food" is still going to be available in the market...rather in long term such a ban will increase the overall sales of junk food as students would want more of it
2.people will substitute western junk food with indian fried food which is equally bad for health
the government needs to think of some other ways of inculcating healthy habits in ppl . they can do this by introducing chapters in school books or creating awareness through skits and plays
Its not the matter of right or wrong, their must be a reason for every step taken, in this scenario it is not just a rule of 3-4 days. We must see the long term effects associated with them and when it comes to banning these so called junk food in school age itself, i think it regulates the children from the young age and stops them from being addicted to. I dont think projecting the calorie details on the packets does any change to the demand of it, hardly people look at the packet for the above, its just Buy-consume policy which students adopt to.
I believe the ban on tobacco products around schools is a very apt step taken by the government viewing the increasing trend of consumption of tobacco and related products.Due to this new policy habitual smokers to some extent will be deterred from smoking.
The ban on junk food in schools and campuses is an excellent step taken by the government.This has to a very large extent improved the eating habits of many children.
The only step that the government has to take now is to include desi Snacks in the category of "junk foods".
Rishabh sureka
1752
Banning consumption of junk food and colas is not an appropriate step to curb its ill-effets as this strategy is flawed in many ways :
(i)it is not banning the "desi"food stuffs which contain same amount of cholestrol as junk food or even more than that.
(ii)the ban in colleges and schools are not much effective as there are many other sources to access these kind of stuffs.
also in this case it will not be that easy to implement this ban effectively as today even the parents don't discourage their children to stop the consumption of junk food ..
I think taxation should be increased on junk food and desi food .More awareness to be provided about the health hazards associated with consumption of junk food among parents and Children..
Since most school going children can not make judicious decisions therefore there has to be some kind of regulation in their consumption of junk food. The ban on junk food was justified because bad habits should be nipped in the bud and moreover people may argue that students can always go outside and eat junk but however the aim here is to curtail and curb the consumption of junk food as much as possible . Therefore wherever possible steps should be taken to limit and eradicate the cunsumption of junk food . Awareness programmes regarding importance of good health and the deletrious consequences of junk food consumption can be of great help.
RAJAT
The decision of the government to ban junk foods in the school and college canteens is baseless, inappropriate and also to some extent ineffective.
Childhood is a phase through which each one of us have passed and its biggest asset is its innocence. The desire of having lip smacking junk foods at this stage of life is its innocence and that cannot be substituted with any other commodity. Here, what I am trying to say is that a child may be satisfied by playing a PS3 but that will never work as a substitute to the satisfaction obtained from having spicy chips or some tom yum soups. Similar is the case for college goers. Moreover, for them the satisfaction is not merely obtained from the consumption of these junk foods, but the chats, jokes and laughter with friends also plays a vital role. So, therefore a ban on these products in a hidden way means to cut down the chances of new friendship, which eventually arises changes in the friend circle. This is because the biker gang of the college will make some junction quite far from the college, where they can spend a quality time having these junk foods and the ones without any means will get off from the bus somewhere else and do the same. Here, due to the peer pressure: even if one is a smoker then the entire group is vulnerable to it.
So, in my view, this sort of inapt step of government can never give them the outcome that they are looking for but will definitely arise other various consequences. Moreover, instead of a ban, awareness must be created that these junk foods are only for savor and not to fill in your stomach. Once everyone understands that having these junk foods in bulk is perilous then, the entire problem will solve.
Lastly, I have noted a few friends supporting the government’s move and not realizing what their life will turn out if a ban is placed in these junk foods. They should not be hypothetical and should observe by not going to the canteen of ours after class and only eating in the mess for a week and drinking only water at all times. I am sure a frustration will definitely arise.
Shardul Thapa
1754
I believe that the ban might prevent the school kids from eating "junk" food but it cannot be enforced upon college students as most of them would have "junk" food outside the campus; which can happen in the case of school going kids but will definitely happen in the case of college students. The Govt. should give freedom to college students as they are mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions.
Also the govt. should ban the "desi junk" food, which is as dangerous as western "junk" food. The ban on tobacco products is welcomed though it is of no use
until it is enforced properly.
Soumya
Its not always the ban which works,
one must understand that awareness would work better than ban.therefore government inspite of banning junk,it should launch awareness programs at school and college level to inform the students about its harm and should organize workshops yo demonstrste its true harm.The government should also suggest the viable alternatives to junk that stidents should like and nutritionally fit.
The ban on junk food on campus is perhaps a decision taken in haste and without any rationale. Firstly it is impossible to regulate what people eat inside the campus...Keeping an eye on the eating habits of around one thousand people is an obnoxious thought.
Also people can simply can go out of the campus when they have junk food cravings. This simply destroys the whole point of the sanction.
This order not only prohibits people's right to excercise their personal choice but also conveniently ignores the inherent contradictions that it itself contains.
The hindu article clearly points out what a menace cigarette smoking is turning out to be.So i personally agree with the government's decision to have a blanket ban on smoking.
As it has been pointed out on the blog that the government seems to have no backup plans. For example if u ban a burger or a pizza in campus there is nothing that stops the students from subsituting it with a samosa or bhatura...which essentialy have the same effects as their predecessor.
Thus until and unless the government comes out with a more fool-proof policy it is almost impossible to imagine the implmentation of the same.
i believe that the government's step to ban junk food is justified. A ban on "junk" food in school certainly helps. Such a ban would compel children to go for other substitutes which are much healthier.Therefore possible steps should be taken to limit and eradicate the cunsumption of junk food . Awareness programmes regarding importance of good health consequences of junk food consumption can be of great help. so i totally agree with the government's step.
the basic problem with banning junk food is that, a complete ban, independant of any form of awareness drive or initiative will just increase the value of the good in the consumers eyes. therefore, the good experiences an increase in desirability and instead of consumption as a whole decreasing, the the consumption on-campus will obviously decrease, but the consumption off-campus will increase considerably due to the new found 'scarcity' of the good.
It would make more sense if the government actually started awareness drives and tried to change consumer preferences by exposing the main market of junk food products to their ill-effects.
As a college student, i would take quite a bit of offense to the fact that my government believed me to be incapable to actually decide for mysself what i should or should not be consuming. in fact, it might act as a form of reverse psychology and i might just consume more junk food than i used to. honestly in my opinion by banning junk food, the government is not really going to achieve anything!
According to me banning junk food from school and college canteen by the government would not be so effective because they are not providing any healthier substitute instead and the commercials which promote these ‘junk’ food obviously increase the consumption as it leads to the bandwagon effect like if Sharukh khan drinks pepsi so we will also drink. If gov instead provide some healthier substitute with lesser price then the demand for these ‘ junk food’ will automatically fall as people will shift to the healthier product as they would provide them much higher satisfaction in lesser cost.
Mohak Arora 1727.
i disagree with the government on a ban on junk food in schools and colleges. this kind of view from the government makes no sense at all. just by havin a few drawbacks of a product does not mean it can be banned completely. in this case the govt is talking about irrational behavior of the consumers who are mostly school and college going students. these youngsters do know the fact that daily consumption of junk food may lead to health problems. however, the govt is refering that parents make their children consume junk food and this is an irrational behavior according to them which i believe is not. moreover, parents know that junk food cannot be substitutes for balanced diet and also the govt is failing on the part of comparing western junk food with desi junk food. thus, i believe that a ban on such food items is not a solution to the problem.
in my opinion this ban on junk food is completely meaningless. i would like to establish this statement on the following grounds:
1)this ban might just have an effct on consumer preferences,thereby effecting the demand and supply curve in the short run, but ultimately in the long run people would switch to junk again to save time and also to bring variety to thier apetite. but since there is no ban on desi junk food, people would ultimately opt for the samosas, chaats, puris which are cooked in poor quality oil. so doesnt this defeat the purpose of the ban in itself?
2) if the government is truly concerned about public healh it should also place a ban on the desi junk food.
3)again the government has only banned the sale of western junk food in the canteens. now that can be considered a little too stupid on the part of the government. how could it just overlook the fact that the age group of prople which it targets to affect ie, the school children and college goers can easily buy these sorts of food from the various fast food junctions.
4)finally, i would like to state that it is not at all right for the government to impose such a ban thereby limiting consumer preferences.
thank you,
soumyanetra.
The ban on junk foods on canteen of educational institution is not justifiable. The reason government give to ban these goods is that Children and College going students aren’t a rational consumer so they consume these junk food and get diet related non-communicable disease. Secondly, they say that the junk-food they take might be addictive and would be difficult for child to break the habit.
Now, the above reasons might be valid but that does not mean that these goods should be banned. There are various other alternatives to discourage taking in of these goods instead of banning it from college canteen as I way or the other the children and college students will consume these goods. I don’t think it will change the pattern of budget line as the change in consumption will still be minimal.
We also must look at the fact that it’s a fast paced world, and college students have lots of things to do. I personally find it difficult to manage my time properly. So, what do I do when I have 5 minutes until the class starts and I am starving with hunger? I will surely look for something that I get easily and we all know the things we get easily and can consume easily without wasting much time is these fast-foods which are also categorized under junk-food. Most of the other goods other than these fast-foods take huge time to get ready and consume, so no one is going to wait for 15-30 minutes to fill up their tummy when they have 5 minutes until the class starts. So, for this reason too I think that fast food should not be banned.
Now, just because these goods have some ill-effects does not mean they are totally useless and therefore ban. Everything has some advantages and disadvantages. Let’s take an example of bikes. No matter how much you try to reduce the amount of smoke and gases thrown out by vehicles, it still isn’t environment friendly thing. Moreover, we all know, many bike accidents have taken place here in Bangalore and many people have lost their life. Now, government can’t ban bikes just saying that they are not environment friendly and they cause accidents. They use different measures to control their ill-effects rather than banning them, like putting up sign boards and pollution check etc. If you just keep on looking at the disadvantages then maybe all the things that exists, from cell phone to aero-plane must be banned. So, just like I mentioned above a different method like raising awareness through campaigns and advertisements can be done in order to change the consumer preferences instead of banning junk-foods.
Rastra B Timalsena
1748
I agree with the govt that junk food is bad for health. I also agree that things which are bad for health should be banned.
I would have done the same thing were I the govt. People need to understand the dangers related to diabetes and obesity which leads to shortening of the life span.
But on one point I disagree:
Pizzas. Pizzas are not bad for health. Pizzas consist of cheese, bread, tomatoes, onion, meat, chillies and many other different vegetables which is good for health. This is a balanced diet in itself.
Other than that the govt is absolutely right in its decisions and i fully support it.
But the govt needs to include many more junk food other than western junk food. My learned colleagues have already said that Indian junk food has not been been mentioned. That is the short coming of the govt.
A ban on junk foood mainly of foreign origin is no good idea as it will raise up the consumption of their cheaper indian alternatives which have no less ill effects .Apart from health ,issue of revenue is unavoidable.If the only thing govt could possibly do for regulating the consumption of much dangerous tobacco and alcohol was raising taxes and awareness side by side and not a complete ban then why not the same treatment for junk food.Higher taxes,awareness, quality upliftment and introduction of cheaper tempting healthier alternatives by BIG BRANDS is a balanced step in this regard.IF the consumer gets fresh juice and carbonated drink at near about the same price..then a pragmatic positive shift in consumers choice would surely be witnessed in the long run.
I would like to say:
1. It's quite presumptuous on the Government's part to label all youngsters as "irrational". It is about time to give the youth some credit. We are rational thinkers completely capable of making our own decisions without the Government making decisions for us.
2. Secondly, "forbidden fruit is the sweetest" , banning something makes it all the more appealing to the consumer. Be it in the case of tobacco. The fact that it is illegal for a minor to smoke has transformed smoking into a fashion statement or a proof of rebellion.
thus, banning something is a very inefficient way of curbing some practice, the same with junk food.
-tenzin
I think that the government has done the right thing by banning the sale of junk food in the college campus.However the steps are not that effective or comprehensive,for example
1)Almost every college campus has a retail shop nearby and hence the step by government largely fails
2)A radius of 100 yards is hardly 100 metres and hence cannot be taken as a prohibitive distance for an addict
Some of the steps that I feel the government should take are
1)Increase the taxes on the fizz drinks and chips
2)Include the 'desi' junk food in the list of food items banned on campus
3)Start add campaigns to educate the youth about the benefits of eating a healthy diet
4)Glamorizing the achievements of sports heroes
But most importantly the psyche of the indian people should be addressed and they should be made aware of the fact that India accounts for half of the world heart disease patients and that they have to make some urgent changes in their lifestyle.
I support the initiative of government to vie for a better and healthier generation.
Gyalten Phuntsok Tsering
1718
in my view,by banning the selling of junk food in school and college premises,the govt. has taken a bold step because 1stly it can became a health epidemic as well as create unhealthy enviroment also students are very prone to bad habbits and banning those junk food(tobacco etc.)indeed they have taken a respectable.
john techi
1721
Banning on junk food and tobacco can have following effects:-
1.consumers may drift to substituents which may be even more hazardous in terms of quality.
2.since consumer preference vary ,available substituents may not be prefered by the targeted mass.Here banning works.
consumption decreases but not demand.A child can still further his demand through parents.
3. labels are expected to work in educating them.
4.tax on such goods cannot be levied arbitrarily and is difficult to enforce.Also parents may be willing to pay a higher price since their trade off is not based on prices.
The two cases presented in the problem that of the youth and that of the children are quite different given the factors that determine their choice to consume junk food.
As in the case of children it might be that of glorification of the product by their stars. for them consumption might not be a play of but also of include a strong element of positive externalities. In such a case the ban by lowering their budget line might(high probability) eventually lead to an altered indiffernce curve. Thus the success ratio of the scheme is higher in the case of schools.
However in the case of youth the junk food consumption pattern emanates from more of a neceesity factor of time constraint and greater utility. But i would like to challenge one assumption of the article whih is that of the awareness of the consumers of healthier alternatives. Another question is on their avaiability. By no means can it be assumed that if people are aware of an healthier product and it is available to them they will not shift towards it as a substitute. This is illustrated by an increasing take of people on health drinks like gatorade, tropicana and real juices and the rush of soft drink giants like pepsi and coca cola to capture this market segment. For eg. recently one of the universities banned coke after the pesticide incident and in turn introduced "Jal Jeera" as an alternative. The experiment was an instsnt success. Therefore I strongly beleive that the Health Ministry has tken the correct step as this might if not eliminate consumption of junk food, reduce it to a large extent. One issue of contention is however that their should be a blanket ban of junk food- indian or western.
Legislating consumer behaviour particularly in matters of personal tastes and preferences is unlikely to yield meaningful results.
Any legislation has to address the issue from all angles and aspects instead of merely looking at one facet of it (e.g. the ban looks at only the sale of junkfood in canteens; it does not consider the alternative routes by which it can be procured and consumed).
Instead of responding or capitulating to pressure groups and lobbies, a comprehensive and careful study of the issue preferably by engaging the experts in the field, persons who will be affected or concerned with the issue should be made.
Social issues need to be addressed by educational campaigns and public debate also in addition to reasonable and effective regulation.
Before implementing a law, the questions as to how to enforce it, is it feasible to enforce it , will the cost and effort to implement it will be worthwhile etc should be considered.
Implementing a ban should not lead to more problems of dispute, disparity and untenable positions.
Varsha Srinivasan
I don't support the decision of the govt to clamp down on soft drinks and junk food as I feel that as a part of a free country, I should be allowed to have whatever I want.
Of course, for tobacco related products, I support the govt fully as there is a direct health impact of cigarettes, not only on the smoker, but also on people around.
firstly there is a need to define the word i.e. "junk food".Are we only saying about pizza , chips ,colas etc.What about the samosas & other so called "desi foods"
An important part of education is to learn how to make good choices.By banning these products it does not teach young people how to make healthy choices; It simply removes some of its options.
So, rather banning food we should teach about nutrition & making healthy choices.
jaya chaturvedi
1720
i think that placing a ban on the consumption of junk food is not the correct option. it is basically an individual choice of what he makes.it is not necessary if it is bannned in the colleges then the students would stop consuming it. the students will then move to outside sources which may be nearby hostel to meet their needs.moreover, i think the today's generation is very much aware that what is right for them & what is wrong.they know each & every consequence of the item which they consume.so basically they should be given the liberty of what they want to do in this aspect.so the government should not interfere in this matter.
swati chandra
1768
I think the step of government is justified because it's government duty to intervene for public welfare.If some product contain unhygienic particles then it must be banned but on the other hand government should also think about the market policy.Ban should be coherent with public policy.Only banning cannot change the food habit of youth,Parents should also check the food habits of their ward .It is not only food habit that determine youngsters health but it is the collective activity of aparticular youth that determine their long term health,so government should increase the check of quality standards of the food market goods.
Sushil dutt
The ban that is being placed on junk food in colleges and schools is what is being irrational, not the consumers. First of all, substitution effect is incredibly likely, as it is in our own canteen. How many of us get vadas and samosas during breaks?
Besides that, I think that college goers and even school children should be given a little bit more credit. Not all of us are irrational and most know the dangers of obesity and health problems and only indulge once in a while (you're more likely to see a student with Tropicana in hand rather than 7 up).
Banning junk food won't help the situation. Students will always find a way to consume it. If we want the value of health to be instilled then perhaps instead of banning junk food all out and trying to limit consumer choice, we should start offering more health classes in schools. This way the youth doesn't feel cornered but at the same time is capable of making smart choices taking long term effects into account.
Praveena Rajasekar
1739
In the modern era,the government has both negative and postive obligations and i think it is using this ban to fulfill its postive obligations just as it does when it asks the people to wear helmets or fasten their seatbelts. So,the step taken by the government and the social reasons cited for it are appropriate. However,economically I do not believe it would be successful in achieving the desired result.
Children can buy junk food once they are back home or out in the evening to play. Also,the mall culture has contributed in increasing the craving for such junk food by advertising in a lavish manner and using strategies which would surely attract children such as placing choclates near the billing area,etc.
If it has to change the consumption level then i think a better way would be to give instuctions to children in school about its harmful effects.
They should also ask manufacturers to increase their nutrient content and let taxes be based on the nutrient value of products. Pictorial representations warning children about the ill effects on containers would also help as children take to pictures easily.
Banning would help but only to a small extent. I think information overload should be the response to this which would also bring the 'desi-junk'food under its ambit.
After so many thoughts having been voiced, there is hardly a novel idea to put forth.
All I can say, is that I respect the Government's sentiment (atleast what SEEMS to be their sentiment) behind banning junk food on school premises is respectable. Is it the right way to go about achieving the goal of staying healthy, though?
I would like to draw from your point in the blog, where you ask whether parents do not know what is right for children. My contention is, if parents of the child themselves do not take steps to educate them about healthy food, is it practically possible for the Government to police students throughout the country?
On one hand we have a ban on these food items WITHIN the campus. How much does this ban actually restrict access of these items to students? Are these food products NOT available immediately outside the campus?
By what stretch of imagination are adults supposed to be considered rational consumers is another point made in the blog. What percentage of adults smoke cigarettes or alcohol? If an adult is not a rational consumer, what influence will he/she have on a child?
Can a Government (in a democratic country) EVER have greater influence on children than their own parents?
In the case of NLS, a small vendor of cigarettes is situated at a distance of less than 100 metres from Gate Zero. Now, even if this shop is compelled to move further, will it prevent those addicted to smoking from accessing it?
At the end of the day, banning a product can only go so far. The demand has not been affected, the supply has been restricted. Considering that we ARE talking about products that people tend to get addicted to, (therefore the demand is inelastic) it is not the sensible way of approaching the issue.
What would be right, is something that many others have explained in a very lucid manner - Awareness about health risks so on and so forth. Typical knee jerk reactions of our administration will take us nowhere.
Prem A
1741
children, often fails to distinguish between good and bad.It is in this place where the importance of this regulation is glorified.The decision of the government is justified.There should not be any compromise on children's health.Awareness programs in school are also encourageable.The bad-effects of over consumption of junk food should be highlighted in the public.
I think that banning junk foods in canteens was not a very smart thing to do.
Firstly, i belive that the rationality principle is incorrect. School children of today are a lot smarter and well-informed than adults give them credit for. They are definitely aware of concepts like dieting and obesity. As for college students, if they are "mature" enough to vote, they can definitely decide what to eat.
Secondly, school children don't spend ALL their day in school. They can just as easily consume junk food at home, with the same health hazaeds.
Thirdly, i agree, that implementation will be a huge problem, primarily because it most likely will not happen. And if it does, it'll be a HUGE drain on resources.
Fourthly, from the government's point of view, this measure will further alienate a cynical youth population. It is a well known fact that a paternal approach in any form does not go down well with the youth.
All in all, this measure will give no benefit (as there is no way to regulte behaviour outside school) and will significantly increase costs (cost of implementation + loss of popularity).
Not good at all.
Monal
I think the ban on "junk food" is not going to serve its purpose.
1)It is really tough to understand the classification of junk food as indian "junk food" has not been included. pakoras, samosas, etc. are equally full of calories.
2)The consumers might feel all the more tempted in this situation. they might end up eating more of "junk food" from outside.
3)Parents as well as students are rational and practical.They can make the best possible choice considering the constraints ( like time).
4)moreover, at the end of the day it is their choice about what they eat.
5)the ban would have worked (that is if they want it to work)had there been proper enforcement.
It is important to create awareness so that people who might want to alter their consumption habits and in turn their indifference curve can do so. this would serve the purpose behind this ban on "junk food".
In my opninion the ban seems to be thought out in good faith but was not analysed properly with respect to the effects it would have on the youth and the society. The point made in the article that more often than not alternatives for the same type of junk food will be available at a stone's throw throws light on the same. While such a ban might be necessary in the eyes of some to inculcate healthy habits in youngsters, the larger question of whether or not the implementation is possible will be answered only after we assess the roles played by the parents, law enforcements agencies, media and the youngsters themselves.
first of all when it comes to defining 'junk food' the western as well as the 'desi' stuff should be taken into account because even stuff like pakoras n samosas have no nutritional value and end up becoming the possible substitutes for the westen junk food.
i believe that placing a ban on junk food is completely unjustified.basically it is a personal choice of what to eat and what not to..
For children their parents take care of them to make them have more of food that has nutritinal value to it. as far as college going students and even for that matter students 14-15yrs above are rational enough to choose their food.
secondly government can't just go about banning junk food because
1. its ur personal choice.
2. banning won't STOP people from eating junk food.it will simply increase the no. of kids and college goers going out for having it.
3.it is absolutelty impractical to go about stopping people from having junk food over other issuses of society which are much more important than keeping a check on students for their junk food.
4.instead of regulating consumers,we can increase the taxes which in a way may help and also a better, healthier substitutes.
5.we can also make colleges and schools to create awreness or include in their curriculum of why its better to eat healthy food..
sir i think the ban on western junk food on campus is good for us because it is bad for our health....the people of usa eat burgers as their staple food and drink coke as their water...just because of such behaviour we will find couch potatoes who are so fat that they feel tired to take even one step...i dont think we as indians dont want our people to be like that....but still we can see effects of the western culture of burgers and coke it urban india also..india is the youngest country in the world and the youth is the future of any nation so it is good to put a ban on the sale of cola on campus...
I think govt. should ban the junk food and desi junk food altogether and replace it with healthier substitutes to reduce the future health hazards.
This would in turn also help the parents to regulate the diet of their children who at present are behaveing in an irresponsible way due to their busy schedule.
Raising the taxes on the junk foods and sending it to the children and children in turn due to their budget constraints not buying it and thus replacing it with some healthier options.
Junk food today is something synonymous with the youth. Every 20yards we find someone with a burger or a soda. The order of the Government to ban junk food on campus is perhaps one of the most obnoxious decisions. Firstly it would be impossible to regulate the eating habits of a thousand odd students on campus. Not only this but also the fact that it is the personal choice of every individual so as to what he/she consumes. Thus i think it is unfair to try and interfere in the eating habits of an individual. Also the government has conveniently forgotten that foreign junk food can be easily subsituted by Indian junk food. And i dont think the concept of lesser evil's apply here.
And about the ban on smoking i think it is justified. Firstly because on a college campus there are a lot of people who are below 18. They may even take to smoking looking at their peers or seniors smoking. Suppose even if he is an adult he has no right to violate the personal space of someone else. Passive smoking is as big as a problem as smoking itself.
Thus a ban on smoking is justified
however a ban on junk food makes no sense at all.
Raman Dixit
1746.
Ban on junk food might have been done with good intention but the restricting consumer choice is of no use.
Even if a certain section of students resort to healthier snacks instead of chips and cola, they may not be aware of the reason for the ban on thses food items. As it has been mentioned already: what about the indian junk food like kachoris and samosas? there are not what the health and family welfare ministry would regard as "healthy".
I personally feel that instead of banning junk food, students should be made aware about the harm it poses.
Another alternative as mentioned is to levy tax on the junk food.
i would like to comment on both the arguments put forward. The first one was of the rationality. Here the entire blame is put on the parents on not informing the children about the ill effects of junk food.The students should be able to make rational decisions and make the right choice and they should be able to make a choice between long term benefits and short term gains.That is one facet of education.Imposing a ban on junk food is just an easy way out by the govt. I feel that the students should be made aware of the harmful effects of "junk" food and they must be made aware of the ill-effects.The ban was placed only on western junk food.Students still had access to desi junk food like kachoris and samosas which drip in oil and are cholesterol laden. Thus the whole purpose of the ban is defeated.
Taxing of junk food should have taken place at a more earlier stage where the students could go without having junk food. The scenario is quite different now,and even if a very high tax rate is imposed,the chances of students reverting back to nutritious food or stop consuming junk food is very less.
Thus, the idea of banning junk food was a wrong decision,because the freedom that is bestowed on the college students enable them to go out and have a smoke or a bite.
Siddharth Anand
1758
I feel that although the ban seems to be justified on paper, it does not seem to be well thought out regarding how it would be enforced. As noted earlier, it does not matter to a college student if he or she can smoke at a distance of 100 meters from campus or 110 meters from campus. Similarly, in the case of junk foods, even though selling such items on campus is not allowed, they can be brought back on campus from nearby markets, thus effectively nullifying the larger effect the ban was supposed to have. One point of argument is logically as to why indian junk foods have not been banned, some of them with much greater fat content than other packaged goods. Govt. statements regarding the same differentiate on the issue on two points: that the indian foods are usually freshly made and hence relatively healthier to consume and that packaged foods have added preservatives (like MSG) which are extremely harmful to the body.
Even though I agree with the spirit of the ban, I think it has to be thought out in a better manner to explore as to how it can be enforced in a better way so as to not defeat the very purpose of the ban. Another point to be noted would be the larger question of educating students and parents about the ill effects of junk food so that these habits are inculcated in the household itself.
Dheer
1714
Very interesting post. Shows how nudge theory can be used to make schemes more effective.
With respect to children and junk food, however, we can perhaps look beyond just the parents controlling the children's food habits and use gentle nudges for children as well, through what they study in school and the advertisements they see on TV.
Post a Comment