Now this is not a continuation, in the true sense of the word, of my previous blog, because frankly speaking, that piece was a sarcastic one, and wasn’t even intended to be taken seriously as a advisory to anyone. But then, a dear friend of mine wrote a comment criticizing my piece on the very same grounds to which I made no pretense, and so I am writing this piece to clear the air up a little.
I have no problems with Mr. Ramadoss’s statements regarding the obviously unhealthy effects of over-consuming aerated drinks and junk food such as burgers, pizzas, etc. I fully agree with the spirit of his argument. I myself do not partake of aerated drinks as far as possible, and well, junk food, I am trying to limit my consumption to comparatively harmless levels. I never even once wished to suggest seriously to Mr. Ramadoss that he even consider banning the companies producing these aerated drinks or the junk food items. On the contrary, I wished to show him the farcical situation he was in himself, a sort of showing him a mirror.
I hope and would like to believe that Mr. Ramadoss truly feels very deeply about this issue, but if he does feel so, then merely issuing an advisory to parents or celebrities alone will not suffice. Developed countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, etc. have strict nutrition-related legislations controlling the oil, salt and sugar content in packaged and other junk foods. Will Mr. Ramadoss be willing to even consider studying the feasibility of such legislation in India? If he is, then I will accept that his intentions are genuine and that he really seeks to do something in this regard. But if he chooses to only issue televised advisories, which, mind you, have already been relegated to the annals of history, no good is served.
As regards celebrities, yes, with great power comes greater responsibility. But I never ate a McBurger because some celebrity told me to eat it. I never ate a Domino’s pizza because some starlet enticed me to do so. We have to comprehend that the power of celebrity endorsements are greatly exaggerated. Amitabh Bachchan asks people to visit the Polio camps without fail. I hope, given his stature, people heed his word. The number of celebrities who endorsed John Kerry in the last American presidential elections should have ensured his victory, but no, the stars simply didn’t shine.
My friend spoke of McDonalds offering healthier alternatives in the US and waiting for a suitably-sized market in India to launch the same here. I would like to query as to why the Government of India does not ask McDonalds to introduce these products in India, irrespective of whether there is a suitably-sized market or not. And if it chooses not to, is it justified in advising the people not to eat the said ‘unhealthy’ food? Will it not be accused of having deliberately tried to embarrass McDonalds without offering it an opportunity to redress its concerns?
Simply blaming junk food and aerated drinks alone for the growing obesity in the population is not fair, because it ignores the decreasing time being devoted to sports and other recreational activities by the youth. Yes, these commodities do the job of adding fuel in the fire, but they are not the root cause.
Even now when Mr. Ramadoss issued his advisory, people accused the government of being haughty, so even if he would have banned it outright, he wasn’t going to get any different reaction either. The government has already, through the various state education departments, restricted the sale of aerated drinks and junk food in school canteens, having recognized the harmful effects of these commodities. He can explore similar solutions in line with this. If the companies producing aerated drinks are modifying their product set-up in response to public demand, then I think it’s a healthy sign. But if they are being compelled to do so by executive fiat, then I stand against it.
The rights of every individual to live his/her own life in the manner that he/she deems suitable is sacrosanct to libertarians. So, whether or not a person eats unhealthy food shouldn’t ideally concern a State, but we can’t live in such a detached world, can we? The State operates health-care facilities, facilities that are burdened by the inability or the reluctance of the individual to eat healthy foods. So, surely this right infringes on the right of the State to operate its services in a most efficient and effective manner.
The Government may say that it does not seek to become too interfering in the matters of an individual’s health by making such legislations, but I say that no individual will ever mind these legislations so long as he/she is in benefit. I agree that a democracy cannot run in a coercive manner, for that runs completely contrary to its very spirit. But I would like my democracy to run according to some humane laws, the Three Laws of Governance (a modification of Asimov’s Laws of Robotics), as follows:
I have no problems with Mr. Ramadoss’s statements regarding the obviously unhealthy effects of over-consuming aerated drinks and junk food such as burgers, pizzas, etc. I fully agree with the spirit of his argument. I myself do not partake of aerated drinks as far as possible, and well, junk food, I am trying to limit my consumption to comparatively harmless levels. I never even once wished to suggest seriously to Mr. Ramadoss that he even consider banning the companies producing these aerated drinks or the junk food items. On the contrary, I wished to show him the farcical situation he was in himself, a sort of showing him a mirror.
I hope and would like to believe that Mr. Ramadoss truly feels very deeply about this issue, but if he does feel so, then merely issuing an advisory to parents or celebrities alone will not suffice. Developed countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, etc. have strict nutrition-related legislations controlling the oil, salt and sugar content in packaged and other junk foods. Will Mr. Ramadoss be willing to even consider studying the feasibility of such legislation in India? If he is, then I will accept that his intentions are genuine and that he really seeks to do something in this regard. But if he chooses to only issue televised advisories, which, mind you, have already been relegated to the annals of history, no good is served.
As regards celebrities, yes, with great power comes greater responsibility. But I never ate a McBurger because some celebrity told me to eat it. I never ate a Domino’s pizza because some starlet enticed me to do so. We have to comprehend that the power of celebrity endorsements are greatly exaggerated. Amitabh Bachchan asks people to visit the Polio camps without fail. I hope, given his stature, people heed his word. The number of celebrities who endorsed John Kerry in the last American presidential elections should have ensured his victory, but no, the stars simply didn’t shine.
My friend spoke of McDonalds offering healthier alternatives in the US and waiting for a suitably-sized market in India to launch the same here. I would like to query as to why the Government of India does not ask McDonalds to introduce these products in India, irrespective of whether there is a suitably-sized market or not. And if it chooses not to, is it justified in advising the people not to eat the said ‘unhealthy’ food? Will it not be accused of having deliberately tried to embarrass McDonalds without offering it an opportunity to redress its concerns?
Simply blaming junk food and aerated drinks alone for the growing obesity in the population is not fair, because it ignores the decreasing time being devoted to sports and other recreational activities by the youth. Yes, these commodities do the job of adding fuel in the fire, but they are not the root cause.
Even now when Mr. Ramadoss issued his advisory, people accused the government of being haughty, so even if he would have banned it outright, he wasn’t going to get any different reaction either. The government has already, through the various state education departments, restricted the sale of aerated drinks and junk food in school canteens, having recognized the harmful effects of these commodities. He can explore similar solutions in line with this. If the companies producing aerated drinks are modifying their product set-up in response to public demand, then I think it’s a healthy sign. But if they are being compelled to do so by executive fiat, then I stand against it.
The rights of every individual to live his/her own life in the manner that he/she deems suitable is sacrosanct to libertarians. So, whether or not a person eats unhealthy food shouldn’t ideally concern a State, but we can’t live in such a detached world, can we? The State operates health-care facilities, facilities that are burdened by the inability or the reluctance of the individual to eat healthy foods. So, surely this right infringes on the right of the State to operate its services in a most efficient and effective manner.
The Government may say that it does not seek to become too interfering in the matters of an individual’s health by making such legislations, but I say that no individual will ever mind these legislations so long as he/she is in benefit. I agree that a democracy cannot run in a coercive manner, for that runs completely contrary to its very spirit. But I would like my democracy to run according to some humane laws, the Three Laws of Governance (a modification of Asimov’s Laws of Robotics), as follows:
- No government may harm its populace or through its inaction allow the populace to come to harm.
- A government will always obey the summons of its people, except when such summons should contravene Law 1.
- A government should always work to preserve itself, except when such self-preservation should conflict with Law 1 & 2.
If the Government of India tomorrow is accused of having willfully permitted these companies to market products that it knew were unhealthy, then what defense will it offer? And in truth, hasn’t it done so?
4 comments:
I'd first like to thank you for the fact chose to address my concerns in a seperate post altogether. I'm flattered! :-)
correct me if I am wrong but the govt. has plans or has already issued instructions so that all packed foodstuffs will contain information of their contents and their nutritional value.
However, to assume that all consumers will read the advisories on packets would be incorrect since it assumes a certain degree of literacy and understanding. Remember that we are still a country where counterfeiters fool consumers by merely copying the colours and general appearance of products(case in point: Parachute)
Moreover, children eat junk food because X celeb asks them to do so is not my case. The success of Mc. Donalds lies in the fact that it has endeared itself to children in such a way that parents, either due to ignorance or giving in to pester power, end up letting their tiny tots indulge too much in such junk foods. The government and school authorities are perfectly justified in their attempts to send out a strong message to young students by disallowing sale of colas, junk foods on their campuses. Of course, they can pick up whatever they want once they leave school premises but you are helping learn to choose between right and wrong. It is here that the role of parents comes in but that's another issue in itself...
Besides, even if the governement issues a notice to Mc. Donalds dictating what it should serve and what not, who is going to govern what is sold at every mithaiwallah, vada-pav stall ,etc. Are these not junk foods? Are these not unhealthy?
When we chose to liberalize our economy and adopted the model for freer markets, we gave up on the "mai-baap" sarkar system where the govt. dictated to the industry what to produce and often how much to sell it for.
A simpler and more effective solution is to engineer the demand side by bringing about social awareness. Which is why celebrities can play such a pivotal role. Realize that a good part of India still is influenced by celeb endorsements. Do you really believe that Coke and Pepsi would sell as much if you and I replaced SRK and Aamir in their ads?(perhaps getting much better looking replacements than us wouldn't help too!! :-) )
I wonder what the rest reading this have to say..
I am not suggesting a reversion to the pre-liberalisation structure of Indian industry. What I am suggesting is a practical and already implemented legislation in most developed countries. That these countries may not be overtly capitalist may disqualify my suggestion to some extent, but the suggestion deserves a look.
As regards the fact that the Government has issued instructions that all packed foodstuffs contain their respective contents' info and nutritional value, I applaud such a venture. After all, something's better than nothing.
I support the initiative of the school authorities and by implication of the government to restrict sale of colas, junk foods et al on their campuses and have implied so in my post. The government has asked school authorities to insist that school children bring home cooked food, or at least nutritional food in their tiffins, and have minimal quanta of junk food such as vada pav et al. I guess that's the most we can do in these circumstances.
Aren't we simply seeing one side of the coin? Every scientific argument has two sides, which need to be heard. While cola-baiters would have it that the aerated drinks are harmful, others have refuted their claims successfully. Merely stating that colas are harmful on national television without providing conclusive evidence, nor providing any indication as to what you, as the Government's representative, propose to do in this regard, will not do.
I am all for an open debate, but not of the quality of NDTV's The Big Fight, or others on national television. Frankly speaking, they are farces, wherein the matter never gets resolved conclusively, and you are left even more confused than before.
I have never said that I oppose Mr. Ramadoss's intention to educate the people abt the harmful effects of the said items; he is a doctor and knows his stuff better than I can claim to know mine. I just feel he should show more evidence of his good intentions by way of some concrete steps. Which steps he chooses to take are purely his prerogative.
I don't think celebs are going to stop endorsing them products; there's simply too much money involved, and thers no way the govt is about to revoke licenses, it might break a bunch of WTO rules and again theres too much money involved. But yes, celebs do influence kids a lot. In such a scenario it falls on parents to enforce the rules till atleast the kids reach an appropriate age. As for adults, I think when they opt for such drinks, its an individual choice.
Btw, did you see 'Great Indian Tamasha' on NDTV, the puppets of SRK, Sachin and other celebs were endorsing Milk. lol.
And Vivek: Comment moderation is also a form of censorship, no? like if you dont like a comment you can delete it sorts...
i think the smartest thing our state gov has done is banning the sale of aerated drinks in schools.and i dont buy any under 15 yr old's argument that they are smart enough to make these choices themselves, as some did on tv. theres a reason they rnt allowed to vote.
-rachna
Post a Comment