Even as the noise levels for the ban
on the Nestle product gathers it is interesting 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 they took less than 24 hour to ban the pickle !! I
guess we need to send the message that the life of our citizen is just as
important. The agencies in USA recently imposed a ban on chillies and the Indian
community witnessed the price green chillies sky rocketing for failure to
satisfy their standards. Now Nestle would scurry for cover and have no choice
but get its act together.
An interesting factor of the entire incident is the notices issued to Big B 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
thereunder. 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 of 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 thereunder”. 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 Maduri 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 wake-up 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.