The Morality of Celebrity Endorsements

Even as the noise levels for the ban on the Nestle product gathers, it is interesting to note that India is willing to take on the multinational giant. It is a moot point whether this was voluntary or a product of being caught unawares after the Food Inspector in UP found the MNC napping.

There obviously cannot be much debate on whether the authorities are right in first calling for stoppage of all sales and withdrawal of all the samples available in the market for consumption. The law empowers the statutory authorities to do so and the situation demands it. Recall some years ago when the authorities in USA found something in a pickle from a famous pickle manufacturing unit in India and they took less than 24 hours to ban the pickle!! I guess - we need to send the message that the life of our citizens is just as important. The agencies in the US recently imposed a ban on chillies and the Indian community witnessed the price of green chillies sky rocket for failure to satisfy their standards. Now Nestle would scurry for cover and has no choice but to get its act together.

Interesting aspect of the entire incident are the notices issued to the popular actors, Amitabh Bachchan and Madhuri Dixit. At first blush it would appear rather strange that those who model for the product are now being prosecuted. A look at the provisions of the Foods Safety and Standards Act 2006 may suggest otherwise. The Act defines “Food business” to include manufacture, processing, packaging, storage, transportation, distribution of food, import and includes food services, catering services, sale of food or food ingredients; and “food business operator” as a person by whom the business is carried on or owned and is responsible for ensuring the compliance of this Act, rules and regulations made there under. A proper reading of the enactment would make clear that most of the duties and liabilities are fastened upon the food business operation’, which in this case is Nestle. Surely not Bachchan, not Madhuri.

The area for some debate would be Section 23, which provides that No person shall manufacture, distribute, sell or expose for sale or despatch or deliver to any agent or broker for the purpose of sale, any packaged food products, which are not marked and labelled in the manner as may be specified by regulations. Another section would be Section 24, which places restrictions on advertisement and prohibition as to unfair trade practices.

“No advertisement shall be made of any food, which is misleading or deceiving or contravenes the provisions of this Act, the rules and regulations made there under. It also prohibits any false representation that the foods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity or grade-composition; or makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness;

It is in this context that the two famous film personalities get caught in the web of the law. While it does look attractive to state that they are the face of the sale they would be attracted by the vice of the statute, it would be a tad farfetched to suggest even remotely that they “made the advertisement” of the “false representation”. To give such broad interpretation should then logically take into the sweep of prosecution every media that sold space and time for the advertisement and include the said category of persons too for “false representation” “made the advertisement.

The media has gone to town blaming the two minute recipe. So far so good. However, the sanctimonious tone ill suits them. They too were part of the game. They too made money by placing the Bachchan and Madhuri advertisements on screen and print. The sane route to proper prosecution is not to net too many fishes and let them escape. It is surprising that a part of the media has been critical of the film faces of the sale. To take the theory ahead would imply that parents who served the food to their children too would be liable, not to mention hoteliers who sold it and news channels who advertised the product. If the person who modelled for the product is guilty how come the platform that aired the commercial is not? On the other hand prudence would be to catch the big fish and send a loud and clear message. Hope the authorities would do that and leave the film stars to their job. The film stars too should take this as a fine wakeup call and understand the significance of their signature. Somewhere, even if not statutorily liable, they are morally liable for the use of their good will. Ambassadors do get caught in cross fire.

L Ravichander