Table of Contents
Analysis of The Hindu Editorial 1 : Schooling in India in times of poor air quality
Context:
The debate on school closures during times of poor air quality raises critical questions about scientific rationale, practicality, and the broader impact on students. While initiatives like the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) aim to mitigate pollution, linking school operations to air quality measures requires a closer look.
Introduction: A Familiar Challenge Resurfaces
In mid-November 2024, a scenario reminiscent of the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded in Delhi. Schools were instructed to shift online as part of GRAP measures when the Air Quality Index (AQI) reached a “poor” level. However, this decision warrants scrutiny regarding its scientific basis, feasibility, and the overall risks versus benefits for students.
Understanding the Impact of Poor Air Quality
1. Health Effects Across Age Groups:
- Poor air quality affects everyone, not just children.
- Harmful effects begin the moment AQI surpasses 50, which is considered “good” by Indian standards.
- Protective measures should be triggered early, as health risks increase even at moderate AQI levels.
2. AQI Standards: A Grim Reality Check:
- Delhi rarely experiences “good” air quality days.
- In 2024, there hasn’t been a single day with acceptable AQI levels.
- The assumption that only severe AQI levels (above 400) are dangerous normalizes the risks posed by moderate levels (51–399).
Indoor Air Quality and Educational Equity
Key Considerations:
- Home vs. School Environments: Indoor air quality in many homes is similar to schools.
- Air Purifiers in Schools: Some schools provide cleaner air than homes, especially for underprivileged students.
- Learning and Nutritional Loss: Online classes deprive students of essential in-person learning and mid-day meals, exacerbating disadvantages without significantly reducing health risks.
Limitations of Online Learning
Why It Falls Short:
- Not a True Substitute: Digital education cannot replicate classroom experiences, especially for younger children.
- Increased Screen Time: Excessive screen exposure poses its own health risks.
- Beneficiaries: Only EdTech platforms benefit, not students.
The Case for Keeping Schools Open
More Than Just Academics:
- Schools provide critical social and life skills.
- Prolonged closures, as seen during COVID-19, had detrimental effects on learning and well-being.
- Prioritizing learning continuity ensures students don’t fall behind academically or socially.
The Mask Debate: Beyond One-Size-Fits-All Solutions
Issues with Mask Mandates:
- Lack of Scientific Consensus: Universal mask mandates in schools lack robust evidence.
- Age-Specific Recommendations:
- Children under five were not recommended to wear masks during the pandemic.
- For ages six to eleven, masks were advised, not mandated.
- Classroom Air Quality: In settings with air purifiers, masks offer minimal additional benefits.
Nuanced Approach Needed:
- Mask guidelines should be personalized based on health conditions and expert advice, not blanket policies from schools.
A Science-Based Strategy for Schools
Key Recommendations:
- Keep Schools Open: Regardless of AQI, ensure learning continuity.
- Halt outdoor activities during poor AQI periods.
- Use air purifiers and encourage personal protective measures based on individual health needs.
- Rethink Mask Policies: Avoid universal mandates.
- If masks aren’t worn at home, they shouldn’t be required in schools.
- Recognize potential downsides, such as skin allergies.
- Innovative Learning Models: Avoid defaulting to online classes.
- Schools should explore creative solutions that don’t involve screen-based learning.
- Health Precautions: Prioritize preventive care for students with pre-existing conditions.
- Encourage regular check-ups and vaccinations.
A People-Centric Policy Approach
The Broader Impact:
- GRAP measures often disproportionately affect marginalized communities, leading to wage losses and educational setbacks.
- Policies should focus on equity and prioritize the needs of vulnerable populations.
Conclusion: Schools Are Not the Problem
Closing schools during poor air quality episodes offers little benefit and significant harm. Instead, policies should focus on maintaining safe, in-person learning environments. As Nelson Mandela once said, “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.” It’s time for India to ensure that its approach to air quality and education reflects a commitment to the well-being and future of its youth.
Analysis of The Hindu Editorial 2 : Ban this carcinogenic ‘heart-burn’ drug
Context:
The continued production and sale of Ranitidine, a common acid reflux drug, pose serious health risks. Despite global concerns and bans, the Indian government has yet to take action, endangering public health.
Introduction: A Global Warning Ignored
Last month, pharmaceutical giant GSK faced a massive $2.2 billion settlement in the U.S. over its popular acid reflux drug Zantac®, containing Ranitidine. The reason? High levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a known carcinogen, were detected in the drug. Yet, in India, the drug remains widely available, raising urgent questions about regulatory oversight and public safety.
NDMA: The Carcinogenic Culprit
Valisure’s Findings:
An American pharmacy, Valisure, discovered alarmingly high NDMA levels—some samples contained over 3,000,000 nanograms, far exceeding the U.S. safe limit of 96 nanograms. NDMA exposure at these levels can significantly increase cancer risks.
Not Just a GSK Problem:
The issue isn’t limited to GSK. NDMA’s presence is linked to the instability of the Ranitidine molecule, meaning any manufacturer’s product is susceptible.
Regulatory Response Worldwide:
- U.S. and Europe: Both the FDA and EMA banned Ranitidine back in 2020.
- India: Despite GSK withdrawing its Ranitidine products in India, other manufacturers continue to produce and sell it unchecked.
Government Inaction: Questions That Demand Answers
1. Why Was NDMA Not Detected Earlier?
India’s regulatory system failed to identify or act upon NDMA contamination. This raises serious concerns about the efficacy of the country’s drug testing mechanisms.
2. Why No Ban Yet?
While Western countries swiftly banned Ranitidine, India has been slow to respond. This delay is perplexing, especially with safe alternatives like famotidine, cimetidine, and omeprazole readily available.
Regulatory Framework: Who’s Responsible?
The Indian Pharmacopeia Commission (IPC):
- Role: Sets drug standards, including impurity limits.
- Tasks:
- Publishes the Indian Pharmacopeia (IP), defining quality benchmarks.
- Supplies reference standards for quality testing.
Enforcement Mechanism:
- State Drug Controllers: Issue manufacturing licenses.
- Drug Inspectors: Collect and test drug samples to ensure compliance with IPC standards.
- Compliance Failure: Drugs failing to meet standards are classified as “not of standard quality” (NSQ).
Critical Questions for the IPC:
- Why was NDMA in Ranitidine not detected sooner?
- What steps have been taken since 2020 to set NDMA limits and testing protocols?
- Transparency Issues:
Accessing the latest Indian Pharmacopeia costs ₹50,000, making it inaccessible to many. Given its importance, it should be freely available.
Steps Forward: A Call for Action
- Set Clear Standards:
IPC must urgently establish permissible NDMA limits and ensure manufacturers comply. - Ban Non-Compliant Manufacturers:
Once standards are set, manufacturers unable to meet them should cease production. Regulatory bodies must enforce strict penalties for non-compliance. - Strengthen Regulatory Oversight:
The Ministry of Health must proactively monitor and respond to global health alerts. Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act empowers the central government to prohibit unsafe drugs—this authority needs to be exercised decisively.
Conclusion: Time for Accountability and Action
The continued availability of Ranitidine in India reflects a troubling gap in regulatory vigilance. With clear evidence of its carcinogenic risks and safer alternatives available, there’s no justification for inaction. The Ministry of Health must step up, leveraging Section 26A to ban this dangerous drug and protect Indian lives.
India must learn from global experiences and prioritize public health over commercial interests. As the saying goes, “Health is the real wealth”—let’s ensure our policies reflect that truth.
Latest Govt. Job News: Click Here NRITIHAS.COM