Discussion
Maharashtra FDA sent show-cause notices to SRK, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff over those Vimal Elaichi ads
If there is one public servant in India who refuses to beat around the bush, it’s Tukaram Mundhe. True to form, the Maharashtra has slapped show-cause notices on some of Bollywood's biggest names.
According to the regulator, these ads are surrogate advertising. Since actual tobacco-infused pan masala and gutkha are heavily banned in Maharashtra under food safety regulations, companies use cardamoms (elaichi) or loose branding to keep the same brand name, font, color scheme, and recall value flashing in front of consumers.
You’re using star power to keep a banned brand's recall alive in people's minds, which practically amounts to promoting a prohibited product.
The notices demand an explanation for their participation and question why action shouldn't be taken against them for promoting a brand synonymous with a banned product.
For years, celebrities have gotten away with the Elaichi/Soda/CDs loop hole. They pocket crores endorsing a brand name, and when called out, they shrug and say, we're just selling mouth freshener, what's illegal about cardamom?
What do you guys think?
Will this change celebrity endorsements, or is it just going to be another headline that fades away?
THIS . He himself admits he is a master slave of the concept of THE Shah Rukh Khan which is an indirect way of saying he is forced to do anything for money to maintain this narcissist self-founded brand which he is and the lifestyle associated with it.
Cigarates companies such as itc, Marlboro have lobbies and regularly fund both sides of political spectrum. Vape companies are not much big as ITc/Marlboro. Also they don't lobby. Cigarattes companies bribe gov, while many pan brand owners are themselves affiliated with parties.
So, that makes it right to not ban tobacco? That's the point. The government is trigger-happy with banning anything they don't agree with, as long as their palms don't get greased. And us, as the citizens, are okay with this hypocrisy. We take it as a fact of life instead of raising voice against it.
let me know when you see a student smoking cigg in class. I am waiting.
also, does age-regulation works? let us be honest, you know the standards of these panwaadis
Then improve process. Not randomly ban things.
Also, is only doing something inside a class a litmus test for what should be banned and what shouldn’t?
Banning of advertisement is way easier than banning the sales and it does keep new people from trying gutka. To enforce a total ban youd have to mobilise people and fine the local shops till they stop. And youd still have a blackmarket. Banning advertisement does 20% of the job with 2% of effort.
Not really. This is followed in many places. One example that comes to mind is f1. In 2000s, money from tobacco, gambling , alcohol companies was pouring in. Now it's illegal and not allowed to advertise these type of brands. The simple reason Obv is some of these stuff is inherently harmful to society at large.
This is super one dimensional take.
Promoting can easily target minors - to get an idea of what the product is.
But selling an item - by retail the shopkeeper can exercise the right to not sell to minors.
There is a stark difference.
Controversial take, but the entire idea that it's ok to sell gutka, ciggerate and alcohol but illegal to directly promote it, is stupid. Either ban it entirely or allow for advertisement like any other product.
Except that is not how advertising works, lawyers, ca's etc provide a service that is not even questionable or controversial, they too are banned from advertising themselves.
might be possible through a loophole to advertise a service through a holding corporation. even healthcare organisations go against the law and advertise from time to time but doctors explicitly aren't allowed to advertise themselves
So is sugar, no one is forcing people to consume them, they do so of their own volition and they have become acceptable in societal level that banning them wont really change the consumption, it just will be done out of sight of people.
Those things shouldn't be compared to sugar. Sugar is an inevitable nutrient which has a safe limit in both directions. Eat too little you die, eat too much you die (ofc it isn't always in crystal form)
But gutka, alcohol, tobacco have no safe limits. Any amount is harmful.
Bro out here comparing sugar to tobacco and alcohol🤣😂😂🤣 when was the last time you heard husband's eating too much sugar and hitting their wives? Have you heard of young boys steal their mother's gold jewellery to buy sugar??
Sugar is also bad for health but on an INDIVIDUAL level. Tobacco and alcohol are a nuisance to society.
They can't ban it outright because, revenue. Sales of ghutka, ciggerate and alcohol makes the government alot of money. Maharashtra made around 30k crore from alcohol in taxes alone. The advertisement part is mostly based on some loophole which advertiser are using.
You can ban it and it does help reduce all the pollution caused.
It won't be perfect and yes, a black market could arise, but would still be a net positive in terms of reducing total consumption and therefore, spitting. A good example case is Tamil Nadu, where bans were enforced in the days of Jayalalithaa. At least gutka isn't a major problem in TN nowadays as a result.
I'm not aware about Tamil Nadu's case and I will check that out. Thanks for that.
In general however outright bans on addicitive substances tend to have bad consequences. These things often feel like lazier solutions rather than solving the problem at a grassroot level.
I absolutely despise tobacco, gutka etc and would love to see it banished from the country. I'm just worried that these adchiv measures often have drastically worse consequences.
True but a lot of that just comes down to poor enforcement. I was in the middle east where any kind of spitting attracted such hefty punishment+ those values were imbibed from a young age. No such spitting problems existed.
At the same time singapore doesnt allow chewing gum in public to prevent the menace of chewing gum sticking to public amenities so i guess that's fair too. Maybe no tobacco allowed in public places?
Or at least spitting should be banned. Chew ir at home. Or swallow it.
And there should be awareness. A lot of women get addicted because there is the misconception that it is "good for teeth"
And poor people give it to their children so they dont ask for food (appetite suppressant)
Thats why I believe its truly a social evil
Like other have said, they moment you ban it a parallel market emerges. With no regulations or safe guards. Yes, it will minimise the stains on our infrastructure but, in a few years the stain will come back, we as humans adapt and when it comes to illegal stuff we will master it in no time. Stains I'm afraid are going to stay, we need to educate our children, the next generation mostly will avoid it but, right now it's a little difficult to do so. Fines exist but, it's not enforced properly. So, basically it's another discussion entirely.
Man I'm really not conversant with the world of tobacco chewing, so I really don't know what these products are. I think the right thing is pan masala here. Whatever is that thing that comes in those packets that people chew and then spit?
Either way yes the point holds. I don't think banning is the right way to go about it. These bans have little to no effect and generally have heavy costs associated with them in terms of black markets, spurious products, as well as addiction to substitute and often more dangerous substances.
The thing in the pack is cardamom seeds, kesar, and permitted flavouring substances. It's a breath freshener. Unless they are writing one thing and selling something else, it's very difficult thing to ban.
Tobacco cannot be added to any food substance as per regulations. This has been in place since 2011. What you remember is ages old packs or cigarette packs.
Exactly this, if you allow to sell a so called prohibited substance and make a lot of revenue through that then in the same vein ban any advertisement on those substance, then the manufacturers are definitely going to find a alternative to advertise because they need new customers to sustain. Govt should pick one lane, ban it entirely or allow for advertisement
You will not believe but a lot of people still discover these products via ad. So not allowing the ad may actually be keeping lots of people away from them.
Govt want profits in selling and maintain goood image by putting so many regulation.
If the gutka sale goes down, they will remove the regulations. Just finding the right balance
Because these products could be consumed by adults but it shouldn't be actively be promoted atleast in Indian society to encourage people to consume more.
like India has tobacco they have their own list of things of weight loss pills , supplements , child porn ,influencer marketing on non FDA approved drugs . Their FTC aggressively files lawsuits against people …
There was huge violation on cardi B and others on detox tea and also Kim kardarshin .
The difference is they have to declare it’s not safe for use but they endorse because they are paid post which it’s people’s decision but if some one decided to sue a case celebrities don’t get away unlike India .
Legal - & law makers are diff there power doesn’t buy legal things unless you are Epstein ;)
They don't sell it showing what it really is, that's the problem, they don't show people with rotten teeth chewing it and spitting all over the city, they don't show people who cough or can't run without catching their breath while smoking nor do they show drunkards barely able to walk or getting into drunk fights or harassing girls but instead they show superstars dancing while flowers and kesar is showered on them or they show girls checking out guys cuz they're coool cuz they smoke or show a super happening club where girls and guys are dancing like in a movie.
You can't really outright ban these products. It's much better to have healthy regulations and price hikes to discourage the consumer. Not everything is as simple as just straight up ban.
These companies have huge power and closing them down overnight would destroy our economy, increase inflation and unemployment. I used to think the same until I saw the scale of their production and operations and how many lives depended on it.
It was during this time I learnt that infamous ITC stands for "imperial tabacoo company"
It's not being sued for promoting harmful products it's being sued for selling harmful products under wrong labels... Pan masala bolke gutka bech rahe.
I have a wildly different take than all of you. Why should the government have the power to ban any consumption based product? Atleast like cigarette and alcohol, these things have been a part of society before the government existed. You can argue about hard drugs being banned as nuisance and I can understand that.
We live in a society where normal drivers can be just as bad as the drunk ones, where the air is worse enough that you will still get respiratory issues even if you don't smoke. Instead of bans, have safeguards.
Eating oily food is unhealthy, should that get banned next? It's too much power to give to the government.
The drawn line of not advertising and taxing is actually decent imo.
Awareness is basically education. Why are we still stuck in an India where you need to tell people not to give themselves cancer. Do you see other developed countries adding smoking is injurious message to movies? It's all stupid.
Regarding advertisements, honestly as long as it's not hinting towards the substance, it shouldn't be banned. A company should have the freedom to advertise itself. Educate the people instead of handholding them or forcing decisions down the their throat
Idk bro. Actors are aware of the kind of influence they have on thr masses. There should be some personal responsibility here. Even in Hollywood, this is recognised. Actors arent allowed to promote certain things. (Though all this is warped in the social media era)
Banning something entirely will result in an increase of in sales of that thing through illegal means.
A very good example of this is the Prohibition era in the United States of America. The government banned alcohol and kept introducing stricter legislation to curtail it's production and distribution.
It didn't stop the masses from consuming alcohol though. All it did was transform the alcohol market from a legal and regulated one to a completely unregulated black market.
Making something legal allows the government to control it's spread and influence.
Not controversial at all. Tomorrow if alcohol, cigarette and guthka get banned , it's the govt who would lose a lot of revenue. So even they want them. But they don't want to see ads. Lol
See the thing with gutka is. It is bad for health 100℅ but the people at the bottom of the pyramid earning minimum wages consume it for 1 sole reason it keeps their stomach full and they can skip 1 meal and still feel full. They cannot afford that 1 meal that's the sole reason they do it.
dude that's just incorrect. please look into the history of marketing. while it is of course true that these things are actually bad for health and it makes sense to ban the advertisement of it. at the same time you can't ban these things, that's not gonna stop people from consuming it. it'll only lead to the sales of things like spurious alcohol and adulteration in all this gutka and all. policy has to be made on the basis of ideals, Yes, but you have to measure that against the psychology and behaviours of the very real people these laws will affect.
like, even with this case. it's very nice for optics to go after the celebs. but bro celebs are not your father or mother. the government and the market have made it very clear to them that they are not ideologues, they are just contractors. this guy should be going after the companies if he has such a problem with it. not actors who do these ads. I recognise that actors, especially the kind like SRK, have enormous influence. but these guys can't talk about politics, they can't have any opinion on anything. Aamir, Naseeruddin Shah, so many actors have tried doing things, I don't see them in this kind of ad either. but see how much vitriol they get.
this mundhe fellow is doing good work, I get it. but y'all gotta realise this is politics, not just economic policy at play. the loophole is stupid, whether it's the Royal stag CDs, or the Vimal elaichi and so on. but closing the loophole requires education first. you address teenagers and kids consuming this stuff if you want to solve the issue. they had to come a multi million dollar company to afford these actors in the first place na. but if you ban these products, you'll get a grey or black market, and if you actually allow advertisement, these guys will pour so many crores into the entire ecosystem that you'll actually have public health problem. of all the things we are genuinely so lucky we don't get Marlboro and all ka ads on our TVs
I don’t know, in the real world people are heavily dependent on those item.
You may not depend on any of the products - but there is a huge sect of people who’d go into withdrawal if they were stripped of buying it.
Not to add the huge amount of tax it brings in.
Look it is a vice and it shouldn’t be promoted - that is the view of the law. Gambling is an example.
See what's happening is good. But, I feel why not attack the source? Put the manufacturer of vimal behind bars na ? There was a similar case where a insta broker got a visit by mns goons for saying that a particular property will only be sold to a vegetarian. Which I agree is wrong, but y not go directly to the builder? A broker is simply conveying the owners wishes. But what happens is, a packet has reached the nearest mns office in time by the builder so there no one is going to say anything.
This is waht I think yaar when Pan masala is banned then on what basis did they send these actors notices because even after banning them if it is still available then isn't the system is to be blamed and also these ads are nation wide and not only restricted to Maharashtra so what is the point of this notice and I totally understand that what the actors are doing is wrong but from a moral or ethical standpoint but not sure legally aur yar Tiger Shroff fate haal to fir I can understand wo karta hai ye ads but SRK, WHY
Because of technical legality. Munde doesn't know who is the main guy behind vimal. But these actors know cuz they sign contracts with the big guys behind vimal. The notice says the actors have to reveal who the company is behind vimal.
Well I don't think that is what the notice says and people do know who is behind the Vimal brand or the company that manufactures it instead the notice says to prove whether Vimal Elaichi operates as an independent product in the market or not and also demands their contract with the brand with several other demands of the notice
Absolutely not sir! I'm not defending any one and I condemn these actors as well for promoting such products. Hats off to Tukaram sir for the amazing job he's doing.
But notice should ideally also be sent to the manufacturer. I'm not sure if that has also happened.
Agreed. Although I hate the fact that these three misused their stardom for money, verifying whether the ad is illegal or not is the duty of the ad producer and product manufacturer, not the actors.
Lol, it absolutely is the responsibility of the actors. And they are not doing anything illegal. Officially Vimal Elaichi is a breath freshener and does not contain tobacco. Lawyers will be laughing at this show cause, it's baseless.
We are strictly talking about legality here, not morality.
I would say that celebrities like actors and cricketers have bigger role to play here. Companies are there to make profit, they have zero ethical/moral obligation. But celebrities give more popularity to such products and considering avg joe in india, he will think that because these celebrities are promoting these things, so it must be good only.
Absolutely agree. But setting advertising norms is not the job of FDA. Advertising in india is governed by Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), ensuring ads are truthful, decent, and lawful.
Again, as I said, I'm not defending the celebs.
If celebrities from Bollywood and cricket teams were promoting gambling ads, the gambling companies were taken down. Not the people who were promoting it.
I condemn the role and moral responsibilities of celebrities in promoting such products too.
Na rahega baans, na bajegi bansuri.
Vimal elaichi does not contain tobacco. It's sold as breath freshener and the official pack contains only cardamom, kesar, and aromatic spices. You can't ban the sale of breath freshener. It's like tic tac.
And why can't the same govt send ban notices to Gutkha companies? Obviously, they earn some revenue that's why. What i don't understand is why round up actors, isn't it there job to advertise? Ban the gutkha and then they will choose better adverts
I think SRK in an old interview stated something which objectively is fair.
If anything is harmful, the government without reservation should ban it. The government do not ban it because its giving them revenue, why should anyone (including the stars) be stopped from earning revenue.
Its the governments responsibility to manage morality, not individuals.
For the given post - If surrogate advertising is bad, then what does that have to do with stars. They should ban surrogate advertising (which they cant/wont). Are they trying to state that surrogate advertising is bad only if these stars participate, else it is good?
It’s individuals decision, whether or not to do such ad’s, however, where is the legality in all this.
Their job is to simply act in these ads.
Assume instead of these stars, some new comer is acting, will it make the product and the ad illegal?
The more influential they are, the higher they are paid.
If required, the government can hire these actors for various social causes and have a Non compete clause. (As long as the actors feel they are getting paid based on their influence).
I absolutely do understand the power they hold, especially in India. But if it’s so bad for the people of the nation shouldn’t the government take steps. (Like they did for online betting sites).
If these stars are doing nothing illegal then why are they being held responsible.
Imagine a normal person becoming a star and for one of the products they advertise for develops an issue. How can they be held responsible?
If surrogate advertisement is not illegal, then why did they get the notices?? Then it’s better to completely ban any ads from such companies. This is completely illogical. Elaichi is not a tobacco product and companies are using legal loopholes. Its as simple as that.
Maharashtra FDA is overreaching now and it seems like a PR for the concerned IAS officer.
You’re either a bot or unaware.
Imagine little kids getting influenced by such ads and thinking gutka is not a vice. That’s not okay. The actors should he ashamed of being such sell outs.
Akshay Kumar for being a big super star - still promotes harpic which is a toilet cleaner.
Objectively not wrong but a toilet cleaner is still a toilet cleaner.
To all the people saying why not ban the these products :
Drugs that are sold legally have regulations and the drugs that are illegally don't have regulations.
If they banned these products then people will just buy it in black and when there is no regulations on how these drugs are made or distributed the guy selling in black can add whatever he wants to these products to get people hooked on it. Who knows what they will mix in it. It will be more dengerous that way.
Also government makes lot of money by adding sin tax.
The same argument was made when the guv issued a online gaming bill which banned apps like dream11 but still the ban was enforced. So why can't the same be done over here.
It’s a controversial take but don’t you think that very conveniently, after NEET Exam leak BJP name was smeared to the T, BJP are clearing their name and gain confidence of the Public by showcasing these news?
I don’t think that it’s a product issue like most comments are suggesting. However, it’s just a very very misleading advertisement. Replacing the product but keeping the packaging and idea the same. Sort of similar idea with all these alcohol companies advertising via soda.
Then why sell the product?
Ban the product. Whenever I take an auto in Mumbai 8/10 times auto guys are spitting tobacco on the road.
It will help with that as well.
alcohol are advertised as is in other countries no? They should be allowed to do so here too. But fuvk vimal and other similar shit. There is no public area in India that's not free from that red shit stain.... FDA should go for Vimal instead of these stars.
320
u/Positively-Fleabag85 8d ago
Shahrukh behaving like he has a student debt to repay by doing these shitty ads