In February this year, the ban on selling unhealthy food in schools of New Zealand was abolished. With raising concern towards child obesity in Hong Kong, people are appealing for resembling the ban in Hong Kong schools, when it is just two months after the lifting of a similar constraint in another country. I think the policy is bound to be of no justification, of no use and of no need in curbing obesity. The key does not lie on the unnecessary encroachment but soft tactics which infuse the message of healthy eating to students.
The policy is mere obstruction on freedom. A balanced diet is defined as a diet containing all sorts of food substance in suitable amount. Some food on its own should not be labeled as unhealthy unless we are taking it to excess. The culprit is the poor eating habit, which can be fixed by promoting the message of having a balanced diet, not via banning of food strictly. It’s not justified to infringe on students’ rights of taking the goodies simply because some are misusing theirs. With all fatty food put under bars, energetic boys may not be able to attain sufficient energy. Under the severe dictatorship, our contentment from candies becomes history, even the dosage is suitable. As students’ nutrition requirements and eating habits vary, the compulsive banning inevitably is depriving students who are not abusing the foodstuff of their rights to have what they want.
Some are saying that, for those who abuse their freedom, it is righteous to restrain their rights. Nevertheless, such prohibition is heading nowhere near the solution and is not helping anyone. To help students kick their undesirable eating habits, we should bring forward the message to them with soft tactics. Adolescents are often rebellious and it is ridiculous to expect them to comply with the spoon-fed policy, especially when many are having lunch outside their schools. Added to this, as we all know, some go to extreme by fasting themselves when eventually weight rebounds drastically, despite a long journey to lose a kilogram. Our effort will be in vain if students fail to develop self-discipline in having a balanced diet and overcome their temptation towards excessive junk food. Worse still, it may be counterproductive if they grow resentment for having been banned from their delicacies. It is overprotective of a mother to spoon-feed her child, who is already a well-grown adolescent. It is not preferable for her to lock her child away from danger at any time, or her child will never get independent. With over-trepidation that student will get corpulent, all kinds of food except standardized lunchbox will vanish in the campus.
On top of this, it is not practical to enact the policy. It is exerting pressure on school canteens to modify their products and sustain business revenue at the same time. The policy also requires clear guidelines, for instance, whether there is allowance for special occasions, what food types are regarded as unhealthy, how to differ fatty burgers from fresh sandwiches, etc. Yet a detailed guideline compounds the monitoring cost. There are more than a thousand schools in the city, each canteen with countless specialities — it is obvious that monitoring is no simple task.
Is it suitable to pay so much a cost to implement an ineffective policy, which is more of a symbolic act? There are many other ways in tackling the problem of unhealthy diets. Schools may have promotion schemes to call for proper eating, by launching activities like talks and fun fairs, setting up discussion forums and posters. School canteens may introduce some healthy choices, such as fresh fruit juice and fruit, instead of the stereotyped and inflexible ban. Not only should it be confined to the campus, it is also very important for the government to promote the message to the general public so to ensure healthy diet for our next generation all the time, even at home.
Many supporters of the policy insist that it is not feasible for schools to promote anti-junk food when they are selling them. However, we should not infringe on students’ right to have the food as long as they take an appropriate dose. With the ban proved to be ineffective, I don’t see why we need a symbolic act like this.
It is made clear that compulsive banning of unhealthy food in school canteens obstruct students’ right and is no thorough or practicable solution to unhealthy diet. In conclusion, to have school children eat healthily, the key should be boosting their self-discipline instead of instigating the spoon-fed policy.