|
NEW
DELHI: The Government has ruled out any new legislation to check
the menace of misleading advertisements on the electronic or print
media and feels the present laws are adequate to deal with the problem. Apart from enforcement of the Advertising Code and hearing of complaints by the Inter-Ministerial Committee of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, misleading advertisements are also checked by the Advertising Standards Council of India. In addition, there are various laws which contain provisions with regard to advertising: the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1955, Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply, and Distribution) Act 2003, and Consumer Protection Act 1986 among others. Under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, making false or misleading representation materially misleading the public, giving false or misleading facts etc. have been notified as unfair trade practices and a consumer has the right to seek redressal in consumer forums for any loss suffered on account of such misleading advertisements. The Food Safety and Standards Authority prescribe for penal action against misleading advertisements pertaining to food products. Rule 7(5) of the Advertising Code is clear that no advertisement shall contain references which are likely to lead the public to infer that the product advertised or any of its ingredients has some special or miraculous power or supernatural property or quality, which is difficult of being proved. Information and Broadcasting Ministry sources also said the ASCI carries a scroll below advertisements where it attempts to say that the product advertised has not been tested by the Council. While the Press Council of India takes up all issues relating to misleading advertisements in the print media, the Inter-Ministerial Committee has been referring to ASCI all complaints received by it relating to various TV channels. The sources said that the advisories issued by the ASCI have been adhered to by the TV channels in almost all cases over the past two or three years. |
Mumbai/New Delhi: Food regulator tells companies to back claims on products with scientific proof or face action
FMCG firms that make tall claims to embellish their brands
will now have to back such promotional assertions with scientific proof
or temper the tone.
This is because the government is planning to tighten the noose
around firms that have been making exaggerated claims in their
ad-campaigns. The food regulator — Food Safety and Standards Authority
of India — has sent notices to leading companies such as Hindustan
Unilever, Britannia Industries, Marico, GSK Consumer Healthcare, Heinz
India, Dabur India, Emami Biotech, Kelloggs India, Cadbury India —
accusing them of making inflated claims about their products.
These, the regulator feels, violates law (section 24 of FSS Act).
It has also begun prosecution proceedings against select companies in
this matter.
For instance, HUL has been pulled up by the government for
claiming that its product Kissan creamy spread has ‘three times more
essential nutrients than sadharan butter’.
Also under scanner are Britannia Vita Marie for claims such as
‘heart-friendly’ and ‘helps reduce cholesterol’ and Britannia
Nutrichoice biscuits for declarations of ‘no added sugar’, ‘complex
carbohydrates’ and ‘diabetics- friendly’.
Similarly, GSK Consumer Healthcare, the government has alleged,
violates law by a ‘misleading’ claim’ on its product Boost that it
‘provides three times more stamina than ‘sadharan chocolate drink’,
adding that the producer (GSK) has not submitted any specific study on
this product to substantiate its claims.
Another flagship GSK product, Horlicks, has also been red-marked
by the government which states that a claim that the product makes
children ‘taller, stronger and sharper’ is deceptive.
GSK Healthcare has played down the charge. The firm said it had
responded to the notice with all the required studies and excerpts of
their published research for both brands.
“Since then, there was no further correspondence from the FSSAI
on the subject. In case we receive any communication on substantiation
of our claims, we will respond as appropriate. All our claims are in
compliance with the existing laws and we shall cooperate with the
authorities is this matter,” a GSK spokesperson said.
Hienz India’s Complan, Marico’s Saffolla, Cadbury’s Bournvita
Little Champs, Dabur India’s Real Active Fibre, Amway India’s Nutrilite
are some of the other products facing the flak.
Ad professionals and media planners FE spoke to feel that ad
agencies and companies should exercise self-regulation and not go
overboard with promotional claims. Subhash Kamath , managing partner,
BBH India said, “I strongly believe that ad agencies should practice
self regulation. With great creative power comes great responsibility.
In an attempt to be persuasive, ad agencies sometimes cross the line.
There's nothing wrong in exaggeration for entertainment but the agencies
should not cross boundaries.”
Sam Balsara, chairman of Madison World, said ideally the
government should act on these matters in consultation with Advertising
Standards Council of India, an industry-appointed watchdog. “I think if
the government demands, companies will comply with it,” Balsara added.
A Britannia spokesperson said, “All claims on our products are
backed by research and scientific evidence and meet stringent quality
standards at all times. We will continue to provide relevant, reliable
and distinctive options to satisfy the needs of our consumers".
A Dabur spokesperon responded on similar lines."We have
submitted to FSSAI all the necessary documents and scientific papers to
support our claims., We wouldn't be able to comment further as the
matter is subjudice" he said.
“These directives will certainly impact the concerned media
agencies and FMCG companies. From creating the concept to execution of
ads, companies work with ad agencies and media planners for a long
time. Needless to mention about the money spent. After chalking out long
term media plans, it is very difficult to revise them," said a media
planner from a leading media agency.
Not every one agreed. Some ad-makers actually think this flutter
created by the government could prompt many brands to revisit their
strategies, which could translate into more work for the ad-world.
Prahlad Kakar, noted ad film maker said, “If the companies need
to rework on banned ads, agencies (advertisement) will get more money.
As for these FMCG companies, they will have to first make representation
to the government”.
“We ensure that all our brand communication messages are based on
well-established facts, consumer relevant information and that our
advertising claims are supported by globally accepted norms and
scientific studies. With regard to our advertisements, we have
appropriately responded to all notices and currently there are no
notices pending against us, ” said Mohan V, director, corporate &
legal affairs, Heinz.
Companies such as HUL, Marico, Cadbury had not responded to FE queries till the paper went to press.









1.jpg)











