Bottom of FShould
junk food be sold in Indian schools?
Dinesh C Sharma on the Delhi high
court case, the outcome of which will impact millions of school children in
urban areas throughout the country
In
the long list of key public issues that await judicial pronouncements is also
the question of a ban on selling junk food in Indian schools.
This is an important piece of public
interest litigation, the outcome of which will impact millions of school
children and their parents in urban areas throughout the country.
Last week, this case in the Delhi
high court reached a turning point when a set of guidelines on junk food in
schools were proposed by the government.
The question of selling products
like colas, potato chips, noodles and French fries in schools may sound a
trivial issue, but is indeed a complex one that even developed countries like
the United States are grappling with.
The petition filed by the
Delhi-based Uday Foundation wants the government to 'immediately ban junk food
and carbonated drinks in schools' and 'to initiate measures to discourage the
availability of "fast food," unhygienic food and foods with unhealthy
ingredients within 500 yards of schools.'
In addition, steps need to be taken
to 'develop a comprehensive school canteen policy, which emphasises healthy
nutrition among school going children.'
Another prayer is to ban junk food
and carbonated drinks advertisements in media including television.
Over-consumption of processed food
rich in saturated fats, salt and sugar are known to increase risk of child
obesity, a precursor to diabetes and heart disease in adulthood.
Such food is not only unhealthy, but
is also addictive and discourages kids from making healthy choices.
As it is, India has a high burden of
lifestyle diseases, particularly diabetes and heart disease.
By letting young kids get addicted
to junk food, we may be raising a generation prone to severe ailments in
future.
Let’s see why this petition is so significant. This is the
first time someone is seeking a ban on the sale of a set of food products to a
sizeable chunk of population on health grounds.
By seeking a ban on sale of such
food products in and around schools and a ban on their advertising, the
petition virtually equates junk food with tobacco products because only they
face similar restrictions at present.
The equation of junk food with
tobacco is supported by scientific evidence generated by epidemiologists and
public health experts globally.
It has been found that junk food
manufacturers or Big Food companies are using some of the same marketing
techniques as tobacco industry did to lure young customers before restrictions
were imposed.
By permitting outlets of food chains
in schools and selling of their branded stuff in schools, we may be unwittingly
becoming a part of corporate strategies of food giants to cultivate young
customers.
Exposing kids to their products is
crucial for food companies, but is dangerous for health of our children.
Brand recognition starts in early
childhood and kids who recognise multiple brands by the age of four years are
more likely to eat unhealthily and be overweight, research has shown.
The stakes in the litigation,
therefore, are too high for the food industry. No wonder, processed food
manufacturers have got themselves impleaded in the case.
The
way the proceedings in the court have gone on in the past two years clearly
indicates that the government (represented by the ministry of health) is not
serious about taking any decisive steps on junk food in schools.
When the court asked it to prepare
draft guidelines on restricting junk food in schools, the government handed
over the task to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, FSSAI,
instead of a more qualified agency like the National Institute of Nutrition or
the Nutrition Foundation of India.
The FSSAI, which has constantly
being criticised for siding with the food industry instead of acting as an
independent regulator, hired market research firm AC Nielsen to prepare the
guidelines.
It remains a mystery why a market
research firm was hired for a task which should have been handled by scientists
and nutritionists.
Among other things, Nielsen has
conducted annual surveys for food giants to promote their products like soupy
noodles -- precisely the kind of products the Uday Foundation petition is
seeking to ban in schools.
The draft guidelines presented in court are a godsend for the
food industry.
Instead of suggesting ways of
restricting availability of junk food in schools, the FSSAI and Nielsen have
sought to legitimise junk food products.
The most shocking is the very definition
of junk food.
Cleverly, the report has sought to
differentiate between ‘junk food’ and ‘fast food’.
If one goes by the definitions used
in the report, noodles, burgers, pizzas, chips, sandwiches are not to be placed
in the category of ‘unhealthy/junk food’, but they are to be considered ‘fast
food’.
Not just this, there is another
category of foods defined as ‘instant foods’ -- obviously created to fit in
instant or cup noodles.
So if the court bans sale of junk
food -- as sought in the petition -- school canteens could still sell noodles,
burgers, pizzas, chips and so on because according to the government guidelines
proposed in the court, they are either ‘fast food’ or ‘instant food’, but
certainly not ‘junk food.’
The report cleverly passes the buck to
schools and parents. It suggests that schools should include health education
in the curricula and explain to children the importance of balanced nutritional
diets and the need for physical activity. It also has some homilies for
parents.
Then there are long sections on the
importance of hand washing, how to maintain hygiene in school canteens and so
on.
The FSSAI/Nielsen report is silent
on the role of food companies and marketers or ways to restrict their products
in schools.
One wonders why the food regulator
wasted tax payers’ money (we don’t know how much) on getting this report done
when excellent, science-based recommendations are available from the World
Health Organisation, the Nutrition Institute of India and civil society groups
like the Centre for Science and Environment and the Consumer Education and
Research Centre.
On several occasions, WHO has
clearly stated need for restricting junk foods in school. The latest report
issued in June 2013, has called for 'tighter controls on the marketing to
children of foods high in saturated and trans fats, free sugars and salt, in
order to fight childhood obesity.'
Children are surrounded by ads
urging them to consume foods high in fat, sugar and salt, even when they are in
places where they are supposed to be protected such as schools and sports
facilities, it said.
WHO feels that tightening
restrictions on marketing is the key because marketing of unhealthy food to
children has been proven to be disastrously effective.
While adults know when they are being
targeted by advertising, children cannot distinguish between advertisements and
cartoons, making them vulnerable to messages that lead to unhealthy choices,
the report says.
The choice is left to you -- whether to go by
robust research-based recommendations of bodies like WHO or by a report
prepared by a biased food regulator and its paid marketing associate.
