Transgressions are often accompanied by approval. Approval comes in the form of justification.
It can also take the form of dismissal through trivializing, i.e. of the ‘boys
will be boys’ or ‘he was not drunk, he was sleep-walking’ kind.
The magnitude or otherwise should not however warrant
dismissal and this is probably why the adage ‘punishment should fit crime’ came
about. Serious transgressions require
heavy punishment, petty thievery warrant exaction of minor retribution.
We are talking ‘approval’ here. It is no secret that false and exaggerated
claims, especially in a situation where the claimant’s reputation is suspect,
need to be buttressed by approval.
Approval must come from entities that appear to be uncompromised,
honorable, ethical and professional.
This is why people who have some kind of ‘scientific’ badge are tagged
to claim.
It is no secret that companies pump large sums of money into
‘research’ where compromised ‘scientists’ come up with conclusions that back
false claims. It is also no secret that
certain drug companies dress up models with stethoscopes and physicians’
overcoats when peddling medicines. The
laws of the country are either inadequate or lack teeth to counter these
unethical tactics of product and brand promotion. Celebrities are used as models and they are
also used as approvers. For a
price. Kumar Sangakkara’s heart may
bleed for those suffering from Osteoporosis, but if that’s the case, he should
not accept a cent from Anlene, for example. Maybe he doesn’t. Other do, though.
Celebrities, in their ignorance, endorsing products is
understandable. When professional bodies
play ‘approver’ for a price it is a serious matter.
A few years ago, the Heart Association prostituted its logo
on a bran cracker product, claiming it was heart-healthy when there was no
scientific evidence to support the contention.
Then we have the Nutrition Society, whose name suggests it
is a professional body, actively soliciting and receiving funding from sections
of the food industry and thereafter offering apparently neutral views on issues
that either endorse products by relevant companies or deflect or dilute
criticism of the same. Rightfully, they
should disclose ‘interest’ when expressing their punditry.
Recently, a high-ranking official of the Medical Research
Institute, offering voice and designation to a promotional CD put out by the
world poultry industry, subtly recommends that chicken be consumed three times
a week, after contending that myths about the ill effects of eating chicken
contributes to malnourishment among children.
No caveats are offered, for example about alternative sources of
protein. The message is simply ‘give
your child chicken or risk stunting’.
It is widely known, also, that infant foods that are not
absolutely necessary are prominently branded in hospitals, especially in and
around maternity and children’s wards, where unsuspecting mothers are persuaded
to purchase the unnecessary.
The truth is that the consumer is ill-equipped to critically
assess claims made by corporate racketeers and advertising agencies that really
don’t give a damn. Add the frill that is
approval by apparently impeccable authority and the battle is won (by the
unethical) and lost (by the consumer).
Whenever an uncompromised professional stands up and says
‘no’ or ‘wrong’ and points finger, it is not the relevant corporate entity that
moves to sit him or her down. It is the
approving ‘authority’ that actively moves to pooh-pooh, marginalize and
vilify. That’s necessary because bucks
count, one has to conclude.
Let’s put them all together.
We have extremely rich companies eminently positioned to purchase
political cover, ‘experts’ and worse ‘expert bodies’ ready to receive
sponsorship and therefore ready to compromise, scientists up for purchase, and
a consumer that is ill-informed. The
consumer would be like a Kumar Sangakkara suffering from cramps, flu and a cold
and carrying a groin injury facing up to Dale Steyn in full cry, or like a flu-ridden,
ankle-twisted and wrist-sprained Lasith Malinga hobbling up to bowl to Chris
Gayle. Who would bet on Sangakkara
hitting a six? Who would bet on Gayle getting out?
There’s a positive here.
A healthy Sangakkara would negotiate Steyn. A healthy Malinga can outwit Gayle. An informed consumer who knows his or her
rights would give those in the business of hoodwinking a headache. A community of such consumers would knock
them out.