The advertisement you see, the cancer risk you don't

Maharashtra FDA notices Bollywood actors over alleged surrogate advertising, raising questions about how tobacco-linked brands influence consumers. The feature explores consumer exposure to such ads and the serious health risks of chewing tobacco, including its strong link to oral cancer.

In Short

• Maharashtra FDA issues show cause notices to Ajay Devgn, Shah Rukh Khan, Tiger Shroff over Vimal Elaichi ad
• Surrogate ads raise concerns as pan masala brands use similar names to bypass bans
• Study links smokeless tobacco to high oral cancer risk; FDA scrutiny may affect celeb endorsements

A packet of elaichi may look harmless, a celebrity endorsement may look like just another ad, and yet the brand name can do the real work. That is what makes surrogate advertising so dangerous.

The tobacco product does not have to appear on screen for the memory of it to stay alive. The Maharashtra FDA’s notice to actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over the Vimal Elaichi campaign brings this old loophole back into focus, with the regulator questioning whether the ad indirectly promotes a pan masala brand prohibited in the state.

And the concern is not merely about what adults see; WHO says even brief exposure to tobacco advertising can influence adolescents and that indirect promotion can make tobacco appear more socially acceptable.

A LocalCircles survey, which covered more than 37,000 consumers across 297 districts, makes the disconnect harder to ignore. 64 per cent said they had seen advertisements for chewable tobacco brands in the past year. In other words, when the product cannot be advertised, the brand finds another way to enter our homes, screens and conversations.

The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued show cause notices to Ajay Devgn, Shah Rukh Khan and Tiger Shroff over their Vimal Elaichi advertisement, alleging that it amounts to surrogate advertising for Vimal Pan Masala, a product prohibited in the state. The actors have been asked to submit written explanations within 15 days on why legal action should not be initiated against them.

WHEN AN AD SELLS MORE THAN THE PRODUCT

Surrogate advertising often works through familiarity. A brand associated with a restricted product appears through another product, while its name, visual identity or association remains recognisable to consumers.

The Maharashtra FDA said this is the first time it has started examining surrogate advertising. It is assessing whether the advertisement's presentation, dialogue, product name and market context amount to indirect promotion of a prohibited tobacco-related product.

The question is particularly relevant because such advertisements can keep tobacco-linked brands visible even when direct promotion of tobacco products is restricted.

Consumer exposure to these advertisements also appears significant. Sachin Taparia, in a post on X, cited a LocalCircles survey in which 64 per cent of consumers said they had seen surrogate advertisements.

Taparia argued that pan masala brands create unrelated entities for chewable tobacco products, making it important to establish the association between the brands and examine whether such campaigns indirectly promote tobacco products.

The law is also clear on indirect promotion. Under Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003, no person can participate in an advertisement that directly or indirectly promotes the use or consumption of tobacco products. The provision also covers promotion of a tobacco brand name or trademark.

The FDA has invoked Section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which restricts misleading and deceptive food advertisements. Section 53 provides for a penalty of up to Rs 10 lakh for anyone who is “party to the publication” of a misleading food advertisement.

BEHIND THE BRANDING IS A BIGGER HEALTH CONCERN

The debate over how tobacco-linked brands are advertised is not just about marketing. It also raises questions about what consumers may associate with these brands and the health risks linked to tobacco consumption.

A recent study by researchers from M S Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru, found a particularly high risk of oral cancer associated with smokeless tobacco among people above 60 years.

Published in the Journal of Indian Association of Public Health Dentistry, the observational case-control study involved 120 adults, including 30 people with oral cancer and 90 controls.

The study found that smokeless tobacco increased the odds of developing oral cancer by nearly 13 times compared with smoked tobacco across age groups. Among people older than 60, the odds were 19.5 times higher.

It also found that oral cancer was not uniquely associated with men using chewing tobacco across all age groups, including those above 60, indicating that both men and women face risks linked to smokeless tobacco.

Dr Suhas Aagre, Oncologist and Hemato-Oncologist at Asian Cancer Institute, told Economic Times that tobacco is the prime cause of oral cancer across age groups. He said tobacco products contain toxins, carcinogens and nicotine, while prolonged chewing and keeping tobacco in the mouth can further increase the risk.

He advised people experiencing mouth pain, lip sores, non-healing ulcers, bleeding, neck swelling, voice changes or difficulty swallowing to seek medical attention.

Oral cancer cases are rising in both rural and urban areas, with tobacco consumption in forms including gutka, zarda, mawa, kharra, khaini, cigarettes, bidi and hookah remaining a major risk factor. Dr Aagre also pointed to a concerning trend of oral cancer affecting younger people in the 20-30 age group.

- Ends