A new study published in the Milbank Quarterly healthcare journal has drawn parallels between the addictive qualities of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and tobacco products, calling for similar levels of regulation.
UPFs adopt key engineering strategies from the tobacco industry to drive compulsive consumption. Common UPFs such as soft drinks, crisps and biscuits are industrially produced to optimise the doses of addictive ingredients and encourage overuse. They are not just nutrients but intentionally designed, highly engineered, and hedonically optimised products.
The recommendation, therefore, is to apply regulatory policies to UPFs similar to those which are now widely applied to tobacco.
Unlike tobacco, food is necessary for human survival, making the need for UPF regulation even more urgent because opting out of the modern food supply is difficult.
A UNICEF study published in The Lancet last December revealed the extent of UPF consumption among young children, finding that 10-35% of children aged five and under already regularly consumed sweet soft drinks.
Perhaps this should be a timely eye-opener for the Maltese health authorities to beef up their regulatory policy on UPFs over and above the current European Union food safety laws.
A university in debt
A recent news item stating that the University of Malta is €11m in the red must have raised quite a few eyebrows.
Speaking at a Times of Malta event in late 2024, Finance Minister Clyde Caruana criticised the institution's financial management, insisting it must "pull up their socks", "roll up their sleeves" and start generating its own income.
This financial state of affairs in our university represents a crisis that can easily have far-reaching implications.
The fundamental question remains, however, whether a national university should be state-funded or financed in an autonomous manner.
The government has all the power to intrude upon the autonomy of the University of Malta, which is constrained chiefly by its being limited to the financial. It would be a kind of control which politicians may seek, but this may be at odds with the current statutory framework.
To restore confidence in the system and ensure that our university is making the most out of the resources it has, funding should be linked more explicitly to independent quality assurance mechanisms, such as some measure of learning gain.
The current system has been the source of much debate for years, yet it has persisted. While it is not infrequently described as broken by diverse voices, an alternative has not been forthcoming.
Unfortunately, successive Maltese governments have been neglecting the university as a space for true academic work for years. Government funding policies have ignored the fundamental importance of the university and its unique role in advancing knowledge for the benefit of society. Successive governments have introduced policies that prioritise outcomes that can be commercialised. This approach negates the historic role of the university, one in which the search for knowledge has inherent value for society as a whole and not just the narrow commercial interest.
The source of fiscal challenges faced by our university isn't the complexity of the model but simply that it is woefully underfunded. Inadequate public funding leaves it struggling to fulfil its mandates to provide support to all those who come through its doors. This situation is exacerbated as more money is diverted to the new entrepreneurial objectives of the government and business.
University research and education are significant expenditures, both public and private. As such, the broader public should be involved in a conversation about what role society wants our university to play and how those desires align with the long-term implications of proposed funding structures.
Ultimately, all that the University of Malta represents should be funded as a public good.
Lawfulness of students' schoolbag searches
Addressing the parliamentary committee during a session last February that discussed security and bullying in schools, the Malta Union of Teachers President, Marco Bonnici, is reported to have stated that there is no legal clarity as to whether schools can search students' schoolbags at will.
Headteachers and staff whom they authorise have full lawful powers to search a pupil or their possessions where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the pupil may have a prohibited item or any other item that the school rules identify as an item which may be searched for, or has been, or is likely to be, used to commit an offence or injure a person or damage property.
Schools should clearly state in their behaviour policy which items are prohibited. The headteacher must publicise this policy in writing to staff, pupils and parents annually.
Schools can force pupils to be screened and if a pupil refuses to be screened, the school may refuse to allow the pupil onto the premises. This will be treated as an unauthorised absence and not an exclusion. This type of screening without physical contact differs from the power to search pupils.
A search can be considered if the member of staff has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the pupil has a prohibited item or any item identified in the school rules for which a search can be made, or if the pupil has agreed.
Before any search takes place, the member of staff searching should explain to the pupil why they are being searched and how and where the search is going to take place and allow them to ask any questions.
The authorised member of staff should always seek the co-operation of the pupil before searching. If the pupil is not willing to cooperate with the search, the member of staff should consider why.
If the pupil still refuses to cooperate, the member of staff should assess whether it is appropriate to use reasonable force to search. The decision to use reasonable force should be made on a case-by-case basis.
The member of staff should consider whether searching will prevent the pupil from harming themselves or others, damaging property or causing disorder.
Dr. Mark Said