When A Hero Becomes A Health Warning

When a celebrity promotes a tobacco-linked brand, can that influence young fans to try the product? Public-health activists and doctors say the question cannot be ignored.

The issue has gained fresh attention after Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner Tukaram Mundhe recently issued notices to Bollywood stars Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over their association with Vimal Elaichi advertisements.

The FDA has alleged that the campaigns could amount to surrogate promotion of pan masala. The actors have been asked to respond to the notices.

The controversy has once again put India's long-running battle against surrogate tobacco advertising in the spotlight.

Surrogate advertising involves promoting a seemingly legal product such as elaichi or a mouth freshener while using the same brand name, colours, logos, images or celebrity associations linked to a tobacco or pan masala product.

Advertisers may argue that the commercial is only for elaichi or another legal product. But public-health experts say the bigger issue is brand recall.

If people repeatedly see the same brand on television, social media, films or sports events, the brand remains visible even when direct tobacco advertising is banned.

India's tobacco-control laws prohibit direct and indirect advertising of tobacco products. Yet surrogate advertising continues to be a challenge, particularly as social media allows celebrity campaigns to reach millions within minutes.

For young people, the influence of a celebrity can be particularly strong.

The issue is particularly important in India because tobacco and smokeless tobacco are major preventable risk factors for oral cancer.

Dr OP Kharbanda, emeritus professor, National Academy of Medical Sciences and former chief, Centre for Dental Education and Research, AIIMS Delhi, has called for tighter regulation of smokeless tobacco, chewing masalas and surrogate advertising.

He warned that indirect branding can keep tobacco products visible even when direct promotion is prohibited.

“Surrogate advertising can create associations between safer-looking products and harmful chewing products, potentially influencing consumer behaviour,” he said.

Similar logos, colours, packaging and celebrity endorsements can strengthen brand recall, particularly among young people, he said, adding that India’s high oral-cancer burden makes the issue particularly urgent.

Tobacco and smokeless tobacco products are major preventable risk factors for oral cancer. Areca nut, which is widely consumed alone or in chewing mixtures, is also classified as carcinogenic to humans.

Dr Kharbanda said consumers may not always know what is contained in products promoted through tobacco-linked branding and called for stronger enforcement as marketing strategies evolve.

“Personally, I believe celebrities should avoid endorsing food or other products that may be detrimental to health, especially when they have the resources to make responsible choices,” he said.

Celebrities should instead use their influence to promote healthier lifestyles and public health, he added.

Dr Ayushi Madaan, Clinical Psychologist, Yatharth Hospital, Noida 110, shared similar sentiments, as she said, "When a celebrity promotes, endorses or is seen using tobacco, it can unintentionally glamorise tobacco use and make it appear fashionable, acceptable or harmless. Young followers may begin to view tobacco not as a health risk but as a lifestyle choice and trendy, as it is associated with someone they admire."

“This influence can be particularly dangerous because young minds are still developing and are more susceptible to peer and social influences.

“Early exposure to nicotine can affect the developing brain, particularly areas responsible for attention, memory, decision-making and emotional regulation, while also increasing the risk of nicotine dependence. Tobacco use can have lifelong consequences, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and several forms of cancer,” she added.

Celebrities, therefore, have a responsibility to think carefully about the products they promote, Dr Madaan said. Instead of making tobacco-related products look attractive or fashionable, they can use their influence to encourage healthier choices and protect young people from habits that can have lifelong consequences.

Dr Shekhar Salkar, president of the National Organisation for Tobacco Eradication (NOTE), too criticised celebrities for appearing in promotions for tobacco-linked brands through surrogate products. He has argued that such campaigns can keep tobacco-associated brands visible and make them appear socially acceptable despite restrictions on direct advertising.

NOTE has also called for stronger implementation of tobacco-control laws so that companies cannot use advertising loopholes to promote tobacco-related brands.

Activists say the tobacco industry has long used marketing to link its products with glamour, confidence, success and social acceptance. Surrogate advertising, they argue, allows some of this image-building to continue even when direct tobacco promotion is prohibited.

The concern becomes greater when the face of the campaign is a popular actor, sportsperson or other public figure with millions of young followers.

There is also a precedent for celebrities walking away from such endorsements.

In 2021, Amitabh Bachchan ended his association with Kamla Pasand after criticism from anti-tobacco campaigners over what they described as surrogate advertising. He also returned the money he had received for the endorsement.

The episode highlighted an important point: something may be legally permitted but still raise questions about social responsibility.

The Department of Consumer Affairs has also previously flagged concerns about restricted products being promoted through advertisements for products such as fennel and cardamom. The government has held consultations on how to distinguish genuine brand extensions from advertisements designed to get around restrictions.

India's concerns are part of a wider global debate.

The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control calls for comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. Its guidelines recognise practices such as “brand stretching” and “brand sharing”, in which tobacco brands use other products or extensions to maintain visibility.

The challenge has become even greater with social media. A television advertisement may last a few seconds, but a celebrity's post can be shared repeatedly and remain online for years.

For young people, repeated exposure can gradually make tobacco-related brands and products appear normal.

For activists, the debate is ultimately about more than advertising rules.

A celebrity can make a brand aspirational within seconds. For a young fan, however, that influence can stay for years — sometimes with serious consequences for health and finances.

“Celebrities need to be sensitive towards their fans and remember they have a responsibility towards them,” Monika Arora from the Public Health Foundation of India told a media house.

A young person who develops a tobacco-related disease may have to face years of treatment, lost income and a heavy financial burden on the family.

The concern is therefore not that every person who sees a celebrity advertisement will start using tobacco. Rather, it is that repeated exposure to glamorous images can reduce the perceived risk and make experimentation appear harmless.

For celebrities, the question should perhaps go beyond whether the product being shown is technically legal, said an activist on the condition of anonymity. For instance, what does the brand really stand for? Who is watching? And what message does their face send to a young fan?

The question is: Do celebrities realise the harm their endorsements can cause when they use their popularity to promote products linked to serious health risks?