Writers' Block
Writers' Block
Bubbly aunty hands up!
The Maharashtra Government is planning to take the fizz out of its schools. But is a ban on aerated drinks an effective method or is awareness and education a better option?
PAARTH JOSHI
One man’s jumbo burger is another man’s obesity. One kid’s soft drink is Maharashtra Government’s adverse effect on health. So, the government has now decided to ban aerated drinks in school campuses across the state. Closer home in Gujarat, discussions are on, as to whether such a ban is an effective strategy or will it actually make a child more determined to try out this ‘banned product’ at home or while out with friends? Professor of Psychology at MSU Mario Xavier, believes that educational institutions are meant to impart knowledge and they should concentrate there. “A school doesn’t have the authority to judge the ill effects of soft drink consumption. Instead it should focus on informing and educating. Banning wouldn’t serve any purpose but just invite further curiosity in children,” he says. Instead of a ban, Xavier proposes another smart way of educating, “Inform children about the history of aerated drinks, how they ostensibly target kids and explain their harmful effects to them.” Another teacher Ishita Verma believes that any forcible ban is impractical. “How effective is banning when a kid has access to the same unhealthy substance outside the school?” she asks. “Children should be taught about the right and the wrong and be asked to make their own choice. You can’t impose your ideas on them, you need to make them realise the facts,” adds Verma. Surashree Rabadia, a mother, believes the same, “There should be an equally strong campaign against such colas at home. Banning harmful eatables in school will only reduce its consumption but making kids understand at home will guide them even outside school.” Muskan Mittal, a Class X student opts for freedom of choice. “Spreading awareness is always a better option than forcing us into not doing something. We may only become more inquisitive about the substances banned. I think we should be allowed to make our own choices,” says Mittal. School teacher Promila Diwan and Mittal’s classmate Nitish Saxena however, differ. “If a ban is imposed after consulting the concerned section of society, there’s nothing wrong. Children need to be guided until a certain age and that’s not called encroaching upon their space,” says Diwan. Saxena adds: “I think banning can be effective. In the soft drinks case, it will at least reduce the consumption while children are in school.” Once again, the argument bubbles till the rim.
Bubbly aunty hands up!
The Maharashtra Government is planning to take the fizz out of its schools. But is a ban on aerated drinks an effective method or is awareness and education a better option?
PAARTH JOSHI
One man’s jumbo burger is another man’s obesity. One kid’s soft drink is Maharashtra Government’s adverse effect on health. So, the government has now decided to ban aerated drinks in school campuses across the state. Closer home in Gujarat, discussions are on, as to whether such a ban is an effective strategy or will it actually make a child more determined to try out this ‘banned product’ at home or while out with friends? Professor of Psychology at MSU Mario Xavier, believes that educational institutions are meant to impart knowledge and they should concentrate there. “A school doesn’t have the authority to judge the ill effects of soft drink consumption. Instead it should focus on informing and educating. Banning wouldn’t serve any purpose but just invite further curiosity in children,” he says. Instead of a ban, Xavier proposes another smart way of educating, “Inform children about the history of aerated drinks, how they ostensibly target kids and explain their harmful effects to them.” Another teacher Ishita Verma believes that any forcible ban is impractical. “How effective is banning when a kid has access to the same unhealthy substance outside the school?” she asks. “Children should be taught about the right and the wrong and be asked to make their own choice. You can’t impose your ideas on them, you need to make them realise the facts,” adds Verma. Surashree Rabadia, a mother, believes the same, “There should be an equally strong campaign against such colas at home. Banning harmful eatables in school will only reduce its consumption but making kids understand at home will guide them even outside school.” Muskan Mittal, a Class X student opts for freedom of choice. “Spreading awareness is always a better option than forcing us into not doing something. We may only become more inquisitive about the substances banned. I think we should be allowed to make our own choices,” says Mittal. School teacher Promila Diwan and Mittal’s classmate Nitish Saxena however, differ. “If a ban is imposed after consulting the concerned section of society, there’s nothing wrong. Children need to be guided until a certain age and that’s not called encroaching upon their space,” says Diwan. Saxena adds: “I think banning can be effective. In the soft drinks case, it will at least reduce the consumption while children are in school.” Once again, the argument bubbles till the rim.
posted by couldnt-find-a-name at 6:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home