You sometimes hear that, even GDP grew in a period, unemployment actually increased because labour productivity grew so strongly during the period that fewer new workers were needed than the additional entrants into the workforce during the period. As a result, unemployment went up. Some see this as an argument against technological advance and attempts to achieve the highest possible rate of productivity growth.
It is certainly true that a lot of technological change may in short run throw some workers out of a job in a particular firm or industry. However, technological change will also create jobs in other firms and industries. It is easier to identify the short-term losers and, unfortunately, such identification seems to make for more sensational media stories. They are usually concentrated and more vocal than the diverse groups who gain jobs, especially when these gains may come gradually over time. The fact that there are some losers from technological change is no reason to resist it. However, there is an important role for government to play here in that appropriate transitional arrangements need to be available to enable the displaced workers to retrain or relocate to find gainful employment again elsewhere in the economy.
As a simple analogy, imagine an island economy where the inhabitants live on fish, coconut milk, fruit and nuts. They fish using spear, grow and gather coconuts and so no, and then they exchange ther products at going rates of barter system. Now suppose one morning the inhabitants wake up to find a few boats and fishing nets in good repair washed up on the beach. The inhabitants find out that using a boat to go out into deeper water and using a net, could catch a whole heap more fish in half the time. And some of them practise it. After a few days, the others in the fishing industry catch on to the fact that they are using outmoded technology and find they are being undercut by those using the new methods. The spear makers are also concerned at developments. WHAT DO THERE GROUPS DO? They immediately band together to decry the unfair practices of the few with the new technology and try to get the community's elder to ban it. They finally succeed and the boats and nets are immediately burned and things quickly return to the way they were before.
Given this outcome, the community is no worse off than before but it is no better off either.Think about what alternative actions could have been taken when the little island community found itself with the potentially very beneficial, but socially disruptive, new technology. What could have happened to the community's well-being?How could short-term transitional costs have been handled? What lessons does this parable teach us?
Comment:
As a decision maker, we must be far-sighted, showing foresight and good judgement. We must not knuckle down on short pain as success never comes easy in life. As the saying goes 'No venture no gain', we have to really put some effort in something, with eternal perseverance, miracle is just a stone's throw away. Crisis, however, is an opportunity to make change. Genius or mediocrity. is up to you to choose.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Testing #1 - ICU or EU?
At the Brussels summit in mid-May, Nicholas Sarkozy threatened to pull France out of the euro if Germany didn’t help Greece with its debt crises. Disagreement is common in any organization, especially in a big and complex one like the European Union (EU).
However, the threat to quit is uncommon: it depicts the seriousness of tension within EU. Just like in a family, when a couple threatens to get a divorce, the situation must be very serious.
The problem began with the 2008 economic crisis that cost the EU economy tremendously. Despite the $800 billion rescue package put forward by various EU governments in 2009, GDP shrank by 4%- deeper than 2.4% in the US, the epicenter of the crisis. The EU job market contracted by almost 5million, creating a more challenging political climate in several countries, especially those with strong labor unions.
Before any light could be seen at the end of the tunnel, another crisis erupted. This time, the source was inside EU, in Greece. Ironically, the ‘crisis’ comes from the ancient Greek ‘krinein’. Economic integration is a two-edged sword. In good times, it has easily spread economic opportunity among EU members. Through trade of goods and services (free trade), wealth grows and is distributed. In bad times, economic integration has enabled risk and crisis to also spread out quickly trough the decrease in trade, the shrinkage in asset values and capital flight.
COMMENT:
The financial bail-out could also worsen the degree of moral hazard. This provides a lesson for other EU members. Instead of working hard and saving a lot of money, some will prefer to work less and spend more because if something happens they will have strong and generous colleagues to help.
The EU has given plenty of carrot to its members, so it has the right to give the stick to those who don’t comply with their commitments or try to cheat. The EU should not hesitate to expel any member of the union if necessary. This would not only be a lesson to the other members, but it would also cleanse the EU of free-loaders.
The EU has played an extremely important role in the world in the past and hopefully will continue to do so in the future. The global economy cannot afford a failing EU.
At the moment, the EU is in the Intensive Care Unit. We hope it will be able to take advantage of the situation to reflect and to reform.
However, the threat to quit is uncommon: it depicts the seriousness of tension within EU. Just like in a family, when a couple threatens to get a divorce, the situation must be very serious.
The problem began with the 2008 economic crisis that cost the EU economy tremendously. Despite the $800 billion rescue package put forward by various EU governments in 2009, GDP shrank by 4%- deeper than 2.4% in the US, the epicenter of the crisis. The EU job market contracted by almost 5million, creating a more challenging political climate in several countries, especially those with strong labor unions.
Before any light could be seen at the end of the tunnel, another crisis erupted. This time, the source was inside EU, in Greece. Ironically, the ‘crisis’ comes from the ancient Greek ‘krinein’. Economic integration is a two-edged sword. In good times, it has easily spread economic opportunity among EU members. Through trade of goods and services (free trade), wealth grows and is distributed. In bad times, economic integration has enabled risk and crisis to also spread out quickly trough the decrease in trade, the shrinkage in asset values and capital flight.
COMMENT:
The financial bail-out could also worsen the degree of moral hazard. This provides a lesson for other EU members. Instead of working hard and saving a lot of money, some will prefer to work less and spend more because if something happens they will have strong and generous colleagues to help.
The EU has given plenty of carrot to its members, so it has the right to give the stick to those who don’t comply with their commitments or try to cheat. The EU should not hesitate to expel any member of the union if necessary. This would not only be a lesson to the other members, but it would also cleanse the EU of free-loaders.
The EU has played an extremely important role in the world in the past and hopefully will continue to do so in the future. The global economy cannot afford a failing EU.
At the moment, the EU is in the Intensive Care Unit. We hope it will be able to take advantage of the situation to reflect and to reform.
Monday, May 24, 2010
homework #1
Is homework harmful or helpful?
Homework is defined as an out of class task assigned to students to help them practice and prepare for their future. It is set and traced as a tradition of having teachers assigning work and students completing it. However, the system is scrutinized when students spend average time of two to three hours a day doing homework rather than spend with their family. This has drawn utter attention from parents and schools. Since it has no link between homework and achievement, I strongly agree that homework can be detrimental to student as it can lead to frustration and exhaustion, lack of time for other activities and loss of interest in study.
Homework is a burden that can spark frustration and tears. There is some difficult homework that seems far-fetched to be done by the student. Children can be certainly disturbed and bothered with the thoughts of having punishment on the following day. Children will be extremely fatigue with their load of homework after having half day class in school. Some parents may keep on nudging their children just to remind them to complete their homework in time. Having hectic life at both school and home, children may not have a healthy growing process. It is too much to overwhelm a child who is still in the process of shaping their future.
In addition, doing homework reduces the accessibility of other activities. It contributes to the opportunity cost of other more beneficial activities such as exercise and social interaction. Children spend less time outdoors enjoying nature or a good round of sports and physical activities. Children are being physically inactive, and this can pave way for obesity and other related diseases. It may also take time away from families having fun together. This will lead to frail bond between children and their family.
Moreover, homework extinguishes children’s interest in study. Homework is just a mere chore that a typical student had to do. It does not play upon any intrinsic desire to learn things but just to force learning that can even make students hate certain subjects and learning in general. Student is not practicing smart study but barely memorizing facts and formulas without understanding the genuine meaning. Besides, the flawed thinking of teachers and school districts believing that homework correlates to academic benefit treat students as experiment. More homework is being piled on children despite the absence of its value. To no avail children do everything they are assigned, they become dispirited and apathetic towards studying.
In a nutshell, I stand at the side claiming that homework is harmful to children as in causing frustration and exhaustion, lack of time for other activities and loss of interest in study. Most of what homework is doing is driving kids away from learning. Most children dread homework, or at best see it as something to be gotten through. Thus, even if it did provide other benefits, they would have to be weighed against its likely effect on kids’ love of learning. Some naysayers may claim that less or no homework can lead to lower grades. Then lower grades were indeed a small price to pay for getting back curiosity and emotional health.
Homework is defined as an out of class task assigned to students to help them practice and prepare for their future. It is set and traced as a tradition of having teachers assigning work and students completing it. However, the system is scrutinized when students spend average time of two to three hours a day doing homework rather than spend with their family. This has drawn utter attention from parents and schools. Since it has no link between homework and achievement, I strongly agree that homework can be detrimental to student as it can lead to frustration and exhaustion, lack of time for other activities and loss of interest in study.
Homework is a burden that can spark frustration and tears. There is some difficult homework that seems far-fetched to be done by the student. Children can be certainly disturbed and bothered with the thoughts of having punishment on the following day. Children will be extremely fatigue with their load of homework after having half day class in school. Some parents may keep on nudging their children just to remind them to complete their homework in time. Having hectic life at both school and home, children may not have a healthy growing process. It is too much to overwhelm a child who is still in the process of shaping their future.
In addition, doing homework reduces the accessibility of other activities. It contributes to the opportunity cost of other more beneficial activities such as exercise and social interaction. Children spend less time outdoors enjoying nature or a good round of sports and physical activities. Children are being physically inactive, and this can pave way for obesity and other related diseases. It may also take time away from families having fun together. This will lead to frail bond between children and their family.
Moreover, homework extinguishes children’s interest in study. Homework is just a mere chore that a typical student had to do. It does not play upon any intrinsic desire to learn things but just to force learning that can even make students hate certain subjects and learning in general. Student is not practicing smart study but barely memorizing facts and formulas without understanding the genuine meaning. Besides, the flawed thinking of teachers and school districts believing that homework correlates to academic benefit treat students as experiment. More homework is being piled on children despite the absence of its value. To no avail children do everything they are assigned, they become dispirited and apathetic towards studying.
In a nutshell, I stand at the side claiming that homework is harmful to children as in causing frustration and exhaustion, lack of time for other activities and loss of interest in study. Most of what homework is doing is driving kids away from learning. Most children dread homework, or at best see it as something to be gotten through. Thus, even if it did provide other benefits, they would have to be weighed against its likely effect on kids’ love of learning. Some naysayers may claim that less or no homework can lead to lower grades. Then lower grades were indeed a small price to pay for getting back curiosity and emotional health.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Television viewing #2
More than ninety per cent of households in developed countries own at least one television set (Sharif 1999). This confirms that the children can gain easy access to television. This draws utter attention of many psychologists and parents as extensive television viewing is detrimental to children. Argument has been further escalated by American Time Use Survey (2003) as individuals spend an average of two to three hours a day in watching television. I strongly stand with the notions claiming that television viewing brings more harm than good. Children are ignorant to the negative implications caused by extensive television viewing of which can affect development of the thinking process, aggravate academic performance and trigger health problems.
Firstly, extensive viewing of unsuitable programs can deteriorate children’s thinking process. Since children are still naïve about the world, they are likely to be mislead by the ideas and beliefs portrayed by the programs they watch. They become easily frustrated when they encounter unprecedented reality in real life. Research has further justified that those children who watch violent programs eventually become desensitized to violence (Sharif 1999). They will think that violence is a part of life and a natural way of solving problem. Children may also be stereotyped by the superficial movies which narrow down the characteristic of life to sexy, tough, good and bad (Sharif 1999).
Secondly, extensive television viewing worsens the children’s academic performance. As television programs are designed to demand undivided attention, children will be difficult to focus on things like homework, causing a lapse in school work. Study has been done, and it concludes that heavy viewers are among the lowest achievers at school (Leigh 2001). Besides, Flicking between channels searching for something of interest, children indirectly procrastinate the period scheduled for homework. This would lead to further more severe problems such as a dip in academic capability and a decrease in athleticism.
Thirdly, extensive television viewing triggers various health problems. This can be explained when families have their meals in front of the television (Rutherford 2002). The improper dining manners can dampen the digestion process and further affect our health. In addition, it cannot be denied that television can be detrimental if it is watched constantly in prolonged periods to the exclusion of other activities. Children are not being physically active as they waste hours in front of the television viewing the programs they ‘must’ see. The adverse effects on health can be worse when this sedentary activity is indulged in with snacks, causing obesity and related diseases such as diabetes and heart diseases (Rutherford 2002).
In a nutshell, I fully agree that excessive television viewing will definitely bring more harm such as affect the development of thinking process, worsen academic performance and trigger health problem. According to UK Time Use Survey (2000), not only children who are addicted to television viewing, but also full-time workers as they spend most of their free time on TV, video and radio. The crux of the problem is the self-control and self-moderation that withhold us from over viewing television. It takes very little effort to press the button and turn the television off, and what we have to do is to keep up our mind rational and press it.
Firstly, extensive viewing of unsuitable programs can deteriorate children’s thinking process. Since children are still naïve about the world, they are likely to be mislead by the ideas and beliefs portrayed by the programs they watch. They become easily frustrated when they encounter unprecedented reality in real life. Research has further justified that those children who watch violent programs eventually become desensitized to violence (Sharif 1999). They will think that violence is a part of life and a natural way of solving problem. Children may also be stereotyped by the superficial movies which narrow down the characteristic of life to sexy, tough, good and bad (Sharif 1999).
Secondly, extensive television viewing worsens the children’s academic performance. As television programs are designed to demand undivided attention, children will be difficult to focus on things like homework, causing a lapse in school work. Study has been done, and it concludes that heavy viewers are among the lowest achievers at school (Leigh 2001). Besides, Flicking between channels searching for something of interest, children indirectly procrastinate the period scheduled for homework. This would lead to further more severe problems such as a dip in academic capability and a decrease in athleticism.
Thirdly, extensive television viewing triggers various health problems. This can be explained when families have their meals in front of the television (Rutherford 2002). The improper dining manners can dampen the digestion process and further affect our health. In addition, it cannot be denied that television can be detrimental if it is watched constantly in prolonged periods to the exclusion of other activities. Children are not being physically active as they waste hours in front of the television viewing the programs they ‘must’ see. The adverse effects on health can be worse when this sedentary activity is indulged in with snacks, causing obesity and related diseases such as diabetes and heart diseases (Rutherford 2002).
In a nutshell, I fully agree that excessive television viewing will definitely bring more harm such as affect the development of thinking process, worsen academic performance and trigger health problem. According to UK Time Use Survey (2000), not only children who are addicted to television viewing, but also full-time workers as they spend most of their free time on TV, video and radio. The crux of the problem is the self-control and self-moderation that withhold us from over viewing television. It takes very little effort to press the button and turn the television off, and what we have to do is to keep up our mind rational and press it.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Television viewing #1
What are some of the negative effects of extensive television viewing? How can television viewing benefit the viewer?
More than ninety per cent of households in developed countries own at least one television set (Sharif 1999). This confirms that the children can gain easy access to television. This draws utter attention of many psychologists and parents as extensive television viewing is detrimental to children. Argument has been further escalated by American Time Use Survey (2003) as individuals spend about two to three average hours a day in watching television. I strongly stand with the notions claiming that television viewing brings more harm than good. Children are ignorant to the negative implications caused by extensive television viewing of which can affect development of the thinking process, aggravate academic performance and trigger health problems.
Firstly, extensive viewing of unsuitable programs can deteriorate children’s thinking process. Since children are still naïve about the world, they are likely to be mislead by the ideas and beliefs portrayed by the programs they watch. They become easily frustrated when they encounter unprecedented reality in real life. Research has further justified that those children who watch violent programs eventually become desensitized to violence (Sharif 1999). They will think that violence is a part of life and a natural way of solving problem. Children may also be stereotyped by the superficial movies which narrow down the characteristic of life to sexy, tough, good and bad (Sharif 1999).
Secondly, extensive television viewing worsens the children’s academic performance. As television programs are designed to demand undivided attention, children will be difficult to focus on things like homework, causing a lapse in school work. Study has been done, and it concludes that heavy viewers are among the lowest achievers at school (Leigh 2001). Besides, Flicking between channels searching for something of interest, children indirectly procrastinate the period scheduled for homework. This would lead to further more severe problems such as a dip in academic capability and a decrease in athleticism.
Thirdly, extensive television viewing triggers various health problems. This can be explained when families have their meals in front of the television (Rutherford 2002). The improper dining manners can dampen the digestion process and further affect our health. In addition, it cannot be denied that television can be detrimental if it is watched constantly in prolonged periods to the exclusion of other activities. Children are not being physically active as they waste hours in front of the television viewing the programs they ‘must’ see. The adverse effects on health can be worse when this sedentary activity is indulged in with snacks, causing obesity and related diseases such as diabetes and heart diseases (Rutherford 2002).
In a nutshell, I fully agree that excessive television viewing will definitely bring more harm such as affect the development of thinking process, worsen academic performance and trigger health problem. According to UK Time Use Survey (2000), not only children who are addicted to television viewing, but also full-time workers as they spend most of their free time on TV, video and radio. The crux of the problem is the self-control and self-moderation that withhold us from over viewing television. It takes very little effort to press the button and turn the television off, and what we have to do is to keep up our mind rational and press it.
More than ninety per cent of households in developed countries own at least one television set (Sharif 1999). This confirms that the children can gain easy access to television. This draws utter attention of many psychologists and parents as extensive television viewing is detrimental to children. Argument has been further escalated by American Time Use Survey (2003) as individuals spend about two to three average hours a day in watching television. I strongly stand with the notions claiming that television viewing brings more harm than good. Children are ignorant to the negative implications caused by extensive television viewing of which can affect development of the thinking process, aggravate academic performance and trigger health problems.
Firstly, extensive viewing of unsuitable programs can deteriorate children’s thinking process. Since children are still naïve about the world, they are likely to be mislead by the ideas and beliefs portrayed by the programs they watch. They become easily frustrated when they encounter unprecedented reality in real life. Research has further justified that those children who watch violent programs eventually become desensitized to violence (Sharif 1999). They will think that violence is a part of life and a natural way of solving problem. Children may also be stereotyped by the superficial movies which narrow down the characteristic of life to sexy, tough, good and bad (Sharif 1999).
Secondly, extensive television viewing worsens the children’s academic performance. As television programs are designed to demand undivided attention, children will be difficult to focus on things like homework, causing a lapse in school work. Study has been done, and it concludes that heavy viewers are among the lowest achievers at school (Leigh 2001). Besides, Flicking between channels searching for something of interest, children indirectly procrastinate the period scheduled for homework. This would lead to further more severe problems such as a dip in academic capability and a decrease in athleticism.
Thirdly, extensive television viewing triggers various health problems. This can be explained when families have their meals in front of the television (Rutherford 2002). The improper dining manners can dampen the digestion process and further affect our health. In addition, it cannot be denied that television can be detrimental if it is watched constantly in prolonged periods to the exclusion of other activities. Children are not being physically active as they waste hours in front of the television viewing the programs they ‘must’ see. The adverse effects on health can be worse when this sedentary activity is indulged in with snacks, causing obesity and related diseases such as diabetes and heart diseases (Rutherford 2002).
In a nutshell, I fully agree that excessive television viewing will definitely bring more harm such as affect the development of thinking process, worsen academic performance and trigger health problem. According to UK Time Use Survey (2000), not only children who are addicted to television viewing, but also full-time workers as they spend most of their free time on TV, video and radio. The crux of the problem is the self-control and self-moderation that withhold us from over viewing television. It takes very little effort to press the button and turn the television off, and what we have to do is to keep up our mind rational and press it.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Junk food # finale
Should the sale of junk food in school canteens be banned?
The term ‘junk food’ refers to any food that is perceived to be unhealthy and of low nutritional value (Smith 2005). Having junk food in school is becoming prevalent and common as junk food sale brings the most profits to the canteens. Survey on Cook High School has been revealed that the canteen earned profit on junk food sale for more than $10000 per year according to School news (2005). It has therefore fuelled the unhealthy habits of students, leading ultimately to obesity and behavioural problem. Hence, I strongly agree with the voice of banning the sale of junk foods in school canteens because it causes health problem, behavioural problems and litter problems.
Junk food is unhealthy. It is long being blamed for the increase in childhood obesity. Study has been done down on the junk food production. High level of fat, salt and sugar are actually contributing to the problem of youth weight gain (Lin 2005). Most junk foods also contain chemical additives to enhance flavor and colour to increase shelf life and attract potential customers (Smith 2005). Students are too ignorant to the artificial flavouring and colouring which may exacerbate the dental health. Besides, the nutritional value of food eaten by the children may be falling progressively because of increased availability and excessive consumption of fast food.
Moreover, behavioral problems lie vastly under the junk food consumption. According to the child psychologist, Mary Caputo (2005), high contains of chemical additives can trigger behavioral problems such as hyperactivity and collapse in concentration. Students may cause further severe problems such as an increase at each other's throats and vandalism. It is further justified by The Food Show (2005), that teachers have noticed that the removal of junk food and soft drinks from the school canteen can dramatically perk up the students’ behaviour in class. Thus, immediate ban in the sale of junk food in canteens is demanded to ameliorate students’ behavior.
In addition, junk food packaging is the major contributor to litter problems. Littering is hazardous to safety and health. Not only has it weighed down the cleaning costs, it also deteriorate the image of our communities (Smith 2005). Litter like cans, crisp packets, cartons and plastic containers are ubiquitous, thus burdening the school groundsman to spend a relatively long time to clean the ground. As a result, other maintenance projects that benefit the school are less heeded (Green 2005). Therefore, schools have to prohibit the sale of junk food in their canteens in order to trim down their little problem.
In conclusion, junk food sale in school canteens has caused major problems such as health problem, behavioural problems and litter problems. According to Australian Nutrition Journal (2004), foods eaten at home by most of the 12-14-year-old Australian children are beyond the recommended intake. This is not merely of parents' responsibility, schools is too a part of the pitfalls. Less of easy access to junk foods can always be the key of shifting the diet habits of the students. Thus, I strongly agree that the schools should ban the junk food sale in canteens for the sake of the students.
The term ‘junk food’ refers to any food that is perceived to be unhealthy and of low nutritional value (Smith 2005). Having junk food in school is becoming prevalent and common as junk food sale brings the most profits to the canteens. Survey on Cook High School has been revealed that the canteen earned profit on junk food sale for more than $10000 per year according to School news (2005). It has therefore fuelled the unhealthy habits of students, leading ultimately to obesity and behavioural problem. Hence, I strongly agree with the voice of banning the sale of junk foods in school canteens because it causes health problem, behavioural problems and litter problems.
Junk food is unhealthy. It is long being blamed for the increase in childhood obesity. Study has been done down on the junk food production. High level of fat, salt and sugar are actually contributing to the problem of youth weight gain (Lin 2005). Most junk foods also contain chemical additives to enhance flavor and colour to increase shelf life and attract potential customers (Smith 2005). Students are too ignorant to the artificial flavouring and colouring which may exacerbate the dental health. Besides, the nutritional value of food eaten by the children may be falling progressively because of increased availability and excessive consumption of fast food.
Moreover, behavioral problems lie vastly under the junk food consumption. According to the child psychologist, Mary Caputo (2005), high contains of chemical additives can trigger behavioral problems such as hyperactivity and collapse in concentration. Students may cause further severe problems such as an increase at each other's throats and vandalism. It is further justified by The Food Show (2005), that teachers have noticed that the removal of junk food and soft drinks from the school canteen can dramatically perk up the students’ behaviour in class. Thus, immediate ban in the sale of junk food in canteens is demanded to ameliorate students’ behavior.
In addition, junk food packaging is the major contributor to litter problems. Littering is hazardous to safety and health. Not only has it weighed down the cleaning costs, it also deteriorate the image of our communities (Smith 2005). Litter like cans, crisp packets, cartons and plastic containers are ubiquitous, thus burdening the school groundsman to spend a relatively long time to clean the ground. As a result, other maintenance projects that benefit the school are less heeded (Green 2005). Therefore, schools have to prohibit the sale of junk food in their canteens in order to trim down their little problem.
In conclusion, junk food sale in school canteens has caused major problems such as health problem, behavioural problems and litter problems. According to Australian Nutrition Journal (2004), foods eaten at home by most of the 12-14-year-old Australian children are beyond the recommended intake. This is not merely of parents' responsibility, schools is too a part of the pitfalls. Less of easy access to junk foods can always be the key of shifting the diet habits of the students. Thus, I strongly agree that the schools should ban the junk food sale in canteens for the sake of the students.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Junk Food #2
Should the sale of junk food in school canteens be banned?
The term ‘junk food’ refers to any food that is perceived to be unhealthy and of low nutritional value (Smith 2005). Having junk food in school is becoming prevalent and common as junk food sale brings the most profits to the canteens. Survey on Cook High School has been revealed that the canteen earned profit on junk food sale for more than $10000 per year according to School news (2005). It has therefore fuelled the unhealthy habits of students, leading ultimately to obesity and behavioural problem. Hence, I’m strongly agreed with the voice of banning the sale of junk foods in school canteens because it may cause health problem, behavioural problems and litter problems.
Junk food is unhealthy. It is long being blamed for the increase in childhood obesity. Study has been done down on the junk food production. High level of fat, salt and sugar are actually contributing to the problem of youth weight gain (Lin 2005). Most junk foods also contain chemical additives to enhance flavor and colour to increase shelf life and attract potential customers (Smith 2005). Students are too ignorant to the artificial flavouring and colouring which may exacerbate the dental health. Besides, the nutritional value of food eaten by the children may be falling progressively because of increased availability and excessive consumption of fast food.
Moreover, behavioral problems lie vastly under the junk food consumption. According to the child psychologist, Mary Caputo (2005), high contains of chemical additives can trigger behavioral problems such as hyperactivity and collapse in concentration. Students may cause further severe problems such as an increase at each other's throats and vandalism. It is further justified by The Food Show (2005), that teachers have noticed that the removal of junk food and soft drinks from the school canteen can dramatically perk up the students’ behaviour in class. Thus, immediate ban in the sale of junk food in canteens is demanded to ameliorate students’ behavior.
In addition, junk food packaging is the major contributor to litter problems. Littering is hazardous to safety and health. Not only has it weighed down the cleaning costs, it also deteriorate the image of our communities (Smith 2005). Litter like cans, crisp packets, cartons and plastic containers are ubiquitous, thus burdening the school groundsman to spend a relatively long time to clean the ground. As a result, other maintenance projects that benefit the school are less heeded (Green 2005). Therefore, schools have to prohibit the sale of junk food in their canteens in order to trim down their little problem.
In conclusion, junk food sale in school canteens has caused major problems such as health problem, behavioural problems and litter problems. According to Australian Nutrition Journal (2004), foods eaten at home by most of the 12-14-year-old Australian children are beyond the recommended intake. This is not merely of parents' responsibility, schools is too a part of the pitfalls. Less of easy access to junk foods can always be the key of shifting the diet habits of the students. Thus, I strongly agree that the schools should ban the junk food sale in canteens for the sake of the students.
The term ‘junk food’ refers to any food that is perceived to be unhealthy and of low nutritional value (Smith 2005). Having junk food in school is becoming prevalent and common as junk food sale brings the most profits to the canteens. Survey on Cook High School has been revealed that the canteen earned profit on junk food sale for more than $10000 per year according to School news (2005). It has therefore fuelled the unhealthy habits of students, leading ultimately to obesity and behavioural problem. Hence, I’m strongly agreed with the voice of banning the sale of junk foods in school canteens because it may cause health problem, behavioural problems and litter problems.
Junk food is unhealthy. It is long being blamed for the increase in childhood obesity. Study has been done down on the junk food production. High level of fat, salt and sugar are actually contributing to the problem of youth weight gain (Lin 2005). Most junk foods also contain chemical additives to enhance flavor and colour to increase shelf life and attract potential customers (Smith 2005). Students are too ignorant to the artificial flavouring and colouring which may exacerbate the dental health. Besides, the nutritional value of food eaten by the children may be falling progressively because of increased availability and excessive consumption of fast food.
Moreover, behavioral problems lie vastly under the junk food consumption. According to the child psychologist, Mary Caputo (2005), high contains of chemical additives can trigger behavioral problems such as hyperactivity and collapse in concentration. Students may cause further severe problems such as an increase at each other's throats and vandalism. It is further justified by The Food Show (2005), that teachers have noticed that the removal of junk food and soft drinks from the school canteen can dramatically perk up the students’ behaviour in class. Thus, immediate ban in the sale of junk food in canteens is demanded to ameliorate students’ behavior.
In addition, junk food packaging is the major contributor to litter problems. Littering is hazardous to safety and health. Not only has it weighed down the cleaning costs, it also deteriorate the image of our communities (Smith 2005). Litter like cans, crisp packets, cartons and plastic containers are ubiquitous, thus burdening the school groundsman to spend a relatively long time to clean the ground. As a result, other maintenance projects that benefit the school are less heeded (Green 2005). Therefore, schools have to prohibit the sale of junk food in their canteens in order to trim down their little problem.
In conclusion, junk food sale in school canteens has caused major problems such as health problem, behavioural problems and litter problems. According to Australian Nutrition Journal (2004), foods eaten at home by most of the 12-14-year-old Australian children are beyond the recommended intake. This is not merely of parents' responsibility, schools is too a part of the pitfalls. Less of easy access to junk foods can always be the key of shifting the diet habits of the students. Thus, I strongly agree that the schools should ban the junk food sale in canteens for the sake of the students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)