Plots and plants that fascinate the milk powder industry

About a month ago, one of the many scurrilous gossip-mongering websites that pretends to be posting news published a story about a conspiracy.  The claim was that there was a conspiracy to attack the milk powder brand Anchor in order to better position another brand in the market. That conspiracy or ‘plot’, it was claimed, was masterminded by Namal Rajapaksa, with the prominent stock market investor Dilith Jayaweera and this writer (among others) being part of the implementing team.  Big claims, zero substantiation. 

One thing was clear: whoever runs the website doesn’t have a pulse on the media, for the issue was first raised by The Nation way back in March 2013.  The Nation named Fonterra and its most prominent brands.  It took the rest of the media at least 4 months to consider the issue ‘newsworthy’. 

But that was a website run by nameless people and one that is yet to get to A in the alphabet of media ethics.  On September 12, a daily English newspaper announced, ‘Plot Exposed’, with a say-it-all over-line, ‘A small milk supplying company attempts to create fear psychosis among public’.  The author: ‘A Special Correspondent’.   Now anyone who knows anything about public relations will immediately think ‘plant’. 

The plot-claim is basically one of false advertising which ‘cast doubts (about) competitors while misleading the public about the safety of Fonterra, Maliban and Nestle brands’.  The ‘small’ brand, owned by a famous supermarket chain, is said to own just 8% of the market.  A ‘leading media network’ apparently had rejected one such advertisement, on the grounds that it violated media ethics.  The correspondent cites a Health Ministry notice on labeling and advertising: ‘No person should label, package, sell or advertise in a manner which misleads, creates a wrong impression or contains false information about the nature, standard, consistency and quality of a certain food item’.

The media network is not named in the article.

On the morning of Saturday, September 14, 2013, MTV unveiled a hoarding promoting ‘News 1^st’.  The screaming claim was, ‘The plot that failed’.  The tagline, ‘Stock Market Mafia enters “Milk Industry”.’

A clever PR campaign, then? 

All this follows a raging controversy over contaminated milk powder and vexed questions regarding regulations, implementation of regulations, adequacy or otherwise of testing facilities, inexplicable behavior on the part of informal (dis)approving entities such as the Nutrition Society of Sri Lanka and questionable solicitation of sponsorship and agreement on the same involving Fonterra and the Sri Lanka College of Paediatricians.  

What’s MTV’s beef?  Theoretically, it can be argued that the similarity of ad lines is coincidence.  It could be just that MTV was self-righteously acting in the larger public interest, convinced perhaps that there was no contamination in Fonterra brands and oblivious to behavior which, though legal, is at best mischievous. 

Then again, it could have been inspired by nostalgic attachment to the flagship Fonterra brand, Anchor, which MTV’s parent company, Maharaja, introduced to Sri Lanka.  Coincidentally, again, that venture followed a similar contamination scandal in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.   

Anchor’s entry followed a concerted campaign against Nespray and Lakspray spearheaded by Ravaya which included numerous articles on the subject as well as ‘ads’ parodying the payoff lines of these brands.  The Anchor line when the ads began to appear, interestingly, was ‘From New Zealand only’, clearly playing off the legitimate fear of contamination in products originating in Europe. Perhaps Maliban has taken a leaf off Fonterra’s book with the ‘Only from Australia’ strategy.

Victor Ivan, then Editor of Ravaya told The Nation that a spoof of the Nespray ad was used because it was felt that this was the best way to warn/convince the public, especially since many countries had stopped milk powder imports from European countries.  According to Ivan, this was not a ‘planted’ campaign, with even the testing being done free by a Tokyo University professor, who promised to visit Sri Lanka and testify if a case was filed against the paper.

‘Using taglines such as “From New Zealand only” and “From Australia only” could be unethical,’ Ivan said, noting that after the Ravaya revelation, Fonterra used the controversy to increase its market share.

Leon Clement, Managing Director, Fonterra Brands Lanka, told The Nation that he hadn’t seen the ‘Plot Exposed’ story and did not want to comment on a matter about two other institutions.  He diplomatically declined to comment when asked whether local milk producers were indulging in scaremongering, ‘You can come to your own conclusions’.  Unlike Ivan, Clement said there was nothing unethical about Maliban using ‘Product of Australia’, since it was not directly casting aspersions on rival brands.    

He said that Fonterra takes food safety issues seriously:

‘When DCD was found in milk products sold in some countries, Fonterra removed those products from the market. However, now it has been found that DCD is not a food issue. Sri Lanka is the only country that keeps on insisting that DCD poses a threat to food safety. Only some New Zealand dairy farmers used DCD. Now even they do not use it.’

He claimed further, that Fonterra was ethical in its marketing.  Fonterra, though, is clearly walking on the edge in the ethics of advertising, as evidenced by clever sponsorship of events (see The Nation of September 8, 2013) and doesn’t come off looking squeaky-clean in the eyes of the alert consumer when it plants representatives even in informal approving bodies such as the Nutrition Society.  It is certainly legal and there’s nothing wrong in a corporate ‘covering bases’; in this instance it is the Nutrition Society that has to answer the tough questions (which, by the way, it consistently refuses to do). 

There is no evidence (so far) that Fonterra (or MTV) is part of a ‘plot’ or rather counter-plot to the claimed plot, even though the coincidences raise the eyebrows of even the most gullible.  What is strange is that the aforementioned ‘special correspondence’ seems to have totally missed out on Fonterra’s culpability in violating the said Health Ministry notice on labeling and advertising.  The Nation, on April 28, 2013, delved into the issue of exaggerated claims and scaremongering in a story titled ‘Anlene’s Calcium myth’ (Anlene is a Fonterra brand).  The advertisements for its infant formula brands are classics of exaggerated claims.  These do not tread on competitors’ toes, true, but they do warrant ethics query.  For the record, Fonterra did not respond to this story. 

Throughout the process (and it is far from over) there were many who cried that if Fonterra were to pull out, it would be hard to meet the demand.  Dire warnings were posted in social media sites such as Facebook, warning that such an eventuality would result in dampening investor confidence.  Babies would starve, some said.  Some of the objectors did not reveal at the outset that they had in fact serviced Fonterra brands. These are not important matters, though. 

What is important is that this country has better regulatory systems in face.  If food security is part of national security, then self-reliance cannot be pooh-poohed.  A better idea of overall demand has to be obtained, considering that demand can be inflated (Sri Lanka’s per capita consumption of powdered milk is a regional high).  There should be systems to ensure that loopholes are eliminated.  Relevant organizations should have clear, unambiguous guidelines for sponsorship that don’t leave question marks regarding integrity and which inspire and not dull consumer confidence.  Human resource problems should be addressed and resolved.  The consumer has to be alert. All the time.  All this is good for the consumer and good for the corporates, at least in the long run. 

As things stand, whatever assurances that officials may give about Fonterra brands, poor communication and other errors did nothing to make the consumer believe Fonterra. 

Finally, here’s something that policy makers, regulators, distributors, advertisers, media networks, purveyors of gossip labeled ‘news’ and the general public would do well to reflect on.  Neither during nor after the whole Fonterra contamination issue did we see even an inkling of concern about a milk powder shortage. 

It looks like true supply is matching true demand.  And there’s no plot there.  No plant either. 

Read more

An advertising agent comes clean

[In a parallel universe called Humility...]

I was really upset when I heard on Gold FM that Fonterra suspended operations in Sri Lanka. I was convinced that although this must be a dream come true for some, the bigger picture is pretty scary.  I was thinking, ‘the impact on Foreign Direct Investments for the country, jobs, global knowledge transfers, the concept of the free market economy, doing business in Sri Lanka, consumer perceptions, market forces etc etc’.  I whispered ‘God Bless!’ and I murmured, ‘I hope this is not really true’. 

I was emotional then, now I am sober.  I forgot, in the rush, that a lot of the things I fretted about are highly overrated. I forgot that I have happily purchased the lies about free markets and capitalism.  In my fascination with consumer perceptions, I forgot about consumer protection.  I talked of global knowledge transfer but I was silent on profits and value ferreted away from the country.  I talked about FDI but pretend not to know that for every dollar that comes in several dollars go out.  I know it’s not about love but about profit, but I didn’t say that. 

I say ‘big picture, big picture’ when in fact it is the small picture that I am upset about, the small picture being Fonterra having a bad time here in Sri Lanka.  You see, if the big picture really mattered to me, then I would re-think ‘development’, the flawed assumptions, the myths repainted as science, the poisons marketed as ambrosia and aphrodisiacs, the unnecessary that is branded ‘MUST’, and the lifestyles celebrated the creation and obtaining of which require processes that seriously compromise the heath of the planet. 

In the small picture, I see Fonterra quietly buying up potential ‘problems’, such as the Nutrition Society of Sri Lanka.  I see Fonterra skirting around regulations.  I see unethical advertising.  I see, even when the public is rightfully worried, Fonterra operating in very suspicious ways to clear stocks.  I see Fonterra talking about fearing for its staff and suspending operations and I tell the world ‘Oh, those poor workers and their jobs, poor things,’ but I should forget all that and think about the thousands upon thousands who even at this very moment may be downing something they should not and worse, making their kids ‘drink it all up!’  

As for perceptions, I feel really, really, really, really bad. You see, perceptions are not necessarily reflections of reality.  I am in the advertising business. That’s the business of creating perceptions, creating artificial needs, creating ‘musts’ and ‘must-haves’.  Fonterra ads make people believe that what they are drinking is as good as the stuff they would get if they locked lips on udder, but that’s not case, I know for a fact.  Fonterra has used celebrities to endorse its products, but I can bet you that the relevant celebrities are absolutely ignorant about what happens between lactation in New Zealand and the glass of milk given to the kids modeling in the tv commercial.  There’s a thing called unethical endorsement, but I have not gone around the country educating the people (in whose interest I claim to talk) about such things.   

Most of all, I wish to state here what I should have stated when I first offered opinion on Fonterra.  Had I stated what I am about to state, people would have known where I am coming from and why I was so upset. Here goes:

‘Yes of course I did Fonterra brand activation.’

 

Read more

White does not always imply purity



Fonterra Brands


Watergate is the name given to a political scandal that rocked the United States of America in the early 1970s.  It was about a break-in and a cover-up.  It led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.  The scandal also saw the indictment, trial, conviction and incarceration of 43 persons, dozens of whom were Nixon’s top administration officials.

The above is from Wikipedia.  Wikipedia doesn’t have an entry for ‘Milkgate’.  The only association between ‘milk’ and ‘gate’ as of now is ‘Cow and Gate’ a UK based dairy products company.  In the case of the dairy industry, as opposed to Nixonian ‘intervention’, the only ‘break-in’ we can talk about is markets. We could, or rather we should, add ‘breaking through all cautionary safeguards of communities and individuals. And ‘cover up’ would include lulling into a false sense of security by false and exaggerated claims complemented by deliberate fear-mongering.  We could, or rather we should, add ‘purchase’, i.e. of decision-makers (politicians, clearly), approvers (scientists, doctors and their various clubs) and potential critics (media, for example, through pumping in of advertising and the threat of pulling out ads). 

There is also litigation; a panel discussion on Jana Handa scheduled for tomorrow (August 12, 2013) on the subject of milk powder contamination has been shelved on the advice of lawyers since there was a court case on Fonterra.  The topic was milk powder contamination.  If that warrants a no-no, then all poisoners, big and small, can pay someone to take them to court; that would be a cheap criticism-blocker.  If that was legitimate, then a stop on advertising should be voluntarily imposed by these companies, ‘because it is in the courts’!  These companies usually schedule advertisement for long periods, 3 months, 6 months or even a year.  There are big spenders.  Having allocated, they can’t withdraw from contractual obligations.  The relevant media organization can, in the name of ethics, reimburse.  Do they? Will they?  If not, they would most certainly be less comfortable in carrying news that is to the detrimental to their ‘friendly’ and ‘generous’ clients.    

Last week the Government Medical Officers Association advised the Government to ban certain milk powder brands.  This was after the Minister of Technology, Research and Atomic Energy, Patali Champika Ranawaka commissioned ITI to test for DCD in milk powder and the results turned up positive in 4 imported brands.  The Nation applauds both the GMOA and the minister, but wonders why an issue which surfaced towards the end of 2012 did not prompt immediate and decisive action by approving/screening authorities in the Ministry of Health. 

The Nation encountered the issue of contamination in March 2013 during an exercise to assess the adequacy of labeling laws, which again was prompted by concern over unethical advertising.  On March 24, we revealed that contaminated milk powder may have entered the local market.  The Consumer Affairs Authority promised to investigate.  The Ministry of Health expressed concern.  We were told that samples would be tested abroad.  The report on the tests is still to be made public. 

In April we moved to claims about calcium.  Milk powder companies objected; we honored their right of reply and exercised our right to dissect response.  We also investigated the health and nutritional claims of milk supplements. 

There were mixed signals from health and consumer protection authorities.  Some said a ban on milk powder from New Zealand was imminent.  Some said ‘cleared!’  We were not convinced.  When a qualified nutritionist took issue with some comments made by a representative of the Nutrition Society of Sri Lanka, things got even more complicated. The Nutrition Society responded, but only in part.  A set of questions put to the Society by The Nation has met with a stony silence.

Meanwhile, the issue was taken up by other sections of the media.  Interestingly, though, there was surprising reluctance to name names; ‘surprising’ because names, surnames, addresses, ethnicity and religious faith are routinely tagged to suspects of the pettiest crimes. 

The Ministry of Technology Research and Atomic Energy moved, meanwhile.  When the results were out, the milk industry took cover under the test recommended by the Health Ministry, pointing out that ITI had used another method.  Nothing was said about the arbitrary nature of the ministry recommendation as well as the setting of ‘safe levels’.  Certificates from governments in countries where the milk powder came from were thrown in our faces by way of defence. 

In the end the Ministry of Health did stand up.  We applaud, but only quietly.  There are many loopholes, as we pointed out above.  Even as we write, we cannot give a guarantee to the consumer that errant companies are not busy channeling milk powder meant for banned brands to back-up brands, we it were.

Now it is all out in the open.  The issue is not banning this or that product.  The issue is to set in place stringent screening mechanisms to ensure that all food products are safe for consumption.  It is about laws that are able to obtain disclosure on conflict of interest from ‘experts’, approvers and health and nutrition practitioners and advocates. 

This is a war because we live in a country where it is claimed (in the year 2013, mind you) that the draft National Drug Policy ‘was misplaced’!    This is a war because children are the main target and the most vulnerable. 

If ever this country required an impetus to develop the local dairy industry, this is it.  We wouldn’t have to screen important milk powder for contaminants nor wonder whether certifying authorities are above board if we drank our own milk.  Fresh. 

 

Read more

Self-sufficiency the best response

A judge cannot, or rather is not supposed to, sit in judgment on himself or herself.  That’s called ‘conflict of interest’.  Take any Annual Report of any large company or business entity that aspires to become a bigger player in the relevant field and you will find a section on ‘Corporate Governance’, where statements are made pertaining to compliance.  These include disclosures by decision-makers about stakes in the company, either through ownership or association with owners.  

We could call this the Nadu-badu Factor following the pithy and wry descriptive in Sinhala of ‘conflict of interest’, naduth haamuduruwange, baduth haamudurwange (the issue and determination both are in the hands of the determinant). 

Certain things are not disclosed for obvious reasons.  Like theft, for example.  It is up to the victim to make known the fact of theft and up to the law to apprehend thief and recover stolen goods.  Now, when law maker and law enforcer are accessories after the fact of theft, the victim is rendered helpless.  We have a culture of law and law enforcement that is buttressed by a flawed institutional arrangement whose correction is dependent on exploiters of loophole.  We could re-name Sri Lanka as ‘Impunity’ and that would be a decent descriptive and a reflection of the state-of-affairs; we would be honest, if not anything else if this were done. 

Be that as it may, there are can-be-done things and it is in this context that conflict of interest has to be examined. 

The GMOA demanded that milk powders suspected of contamination be taken off the shelves immediately.  The GMOA has to be lauded for taking up the issue and so too should the Minister of Technology Research and Atomic Energy, Patali Champika Ranawaka for employing the resources of his ministry to conduct the relevant tests.  On the other hand, the issue was first raised by The Nation in March 2013.  Assurances were given, statements were released.  It took almost a year, however, since the contamination issue first came up, for authorities to act.  The GMOA is a powerful trade union and that muscle probably swayed government decision, but decision should have been made on the basis of scientific fact and not political nudge.  Why not?  One of the errant companies has been caught bribing sanctioning authorities in other countries; there is no reason why they would shy away from oiling a few palms here since profit and not good-health is what they are about, never mind claims to the latter. 

The GMOA states that a ministry official is in the pay of sections of the milk industry.  Who will investigate? Will investigator have the will or will investigative zeal be purchased?  Will the GMOA carry out its own investigations about members who have received sponsorship from the errant parties?  How about the nadu-badu factor of approvers, for example the Nutrition Society of Sri Lanka?  Are the authorities alert and equipped to investigate if the errant company is stuffing its back-up brands that have not been named and shamed with the milk powder that was meant to go into the containers of the banned brand?

It is clear that this is not a simple matter of a minor error in process.  One of the banned brands owned 75% percent of the market, ironically securing it courtesy of the hit that European brands took after the Chernobyl disaster.  That’s a lot of contaminated milk powder that the nation has consumed, assuming of course that the product was all pure, all fresh, and all wholesome as the advertising claims.  The problem is serious because we are talking about the nation’s children being put at risk.  It is all the more serious because of the nadu-badu factor that has crippled the authorities tasked to screen and protect the consumer, if necessary with the imposition of bans. 

There’s no way around this.  The President, a strong advocate of moving towards self-sufficiency in milk, has to initiate a thorough investigation, including a comprehensive audit of the errant companies.  Those who received money and/or gift have to be named and shamed. 

Milk Gate has taught us other things.  We should be cautious about believing what we are told.  We should look at labels, especially what’s in the small print (that’s what we are not meant to see). We should demand better labeling laws.  We should look for alternatives.

For now, to err on the side of caution, it is best to go for fresh milk or if not, local brands (i.e. not brands that have Sinhala names but which are made of locally obtained milk).     

Read more

That 'Nutritional Society Clarification'

The Nutrition Society of Sri Lanka (NSSL) has written to The Nation clarifying its position on issues raised in this newspaper on matters related to nutrition [See NSSL statement here]. We responded thus:

While thanking the NSSL for its clarification, we offer the following observations.

The reference to ‘animal nutritionists’ was by the GMOA representative.  We take the NSSL’s word on this point.  We have further questions for the NSSL and are confident that a full response will be forthcoming.

The NSSL was formed in 1972 but parliamentary acceptance through an Act came in 1985, right?

Was a meeting of the membership convened as implied in the statement (‘The council and the membership wish to state…’)?

What action has the Council taken on the report of the Committee on Constitutional Matters submitted in January 2013?  

Nutrition is certainly a multidisciplinary subject, which status has its pluses and minuses.  We contend that only qualified nutritionists can opine on issues such as food safety. Does the NSSL have a sub-committee made solely of such professionals to deal with such issues effectively or are opinions of those with a cursory interest in nutrition or general understanding being passed off as ‘expert opinion’?

When did the SLMC register nutritionists?  Does a medical degree give professional and scientific authority to comment on all things related to nutrition? 

NSSL has listed names of past presidents.  Do they share the current Council’s position on sponsorship, conflict of interest vis-à-vis the food industry and the self-glorifying perceptions of the membership and its professional capabilities on the issues raised?

Will the NSSL be kind enough to send us a list of sponsors and their products over the last 10 years, and in the interest of transparency and accountability post it all on the official website of the Society?

Why has the NSSL skirted the conflict-of-interest issues, especially with respect to the Fonterra ‘presence’ in the Council?

Why has the NSSL not addressed the issue of doctoral specialization of the Council members?

How many members of the NSSL have Phds in Human Nutrition? 

 

Read more

Beware of approvers

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.  

Read more