Editorial | Strange strategy by Heart Foundation

For the record, this newspaper is sympathetic to the idea of a tax on sugary drinks as one flank of an assault against Jamaica's crisis of obesity and related illnesses. That support relates neither to a particular class of products nor to specific brands.

It's an idea, however, on which there needs to be serious societal debate, and on which the Government must ultimately decide, taking into account issues such as the public-health implications of sugary drinks; the cost of treating the diseases that they cause; the impact on the economy if these drinks are taxed; and what would be more efficacious a government tax or voluntary regulation by the industry.

There is, too, the matter of public education about the effect of sugars on people's health. Which brings us to the withdrawal of the lawsuit for defamation by the Wisynco Group against the Heart Foundation of Jamaica (HFJ) and the tone of the statement issued by the foundation in the aftermath of the settlement.

In the context of how the matter appears to have developed, the Heart Foundation sounds unnecessarily triumphalist and risks undermining the government-industry dialogue towards a voluntary code of conduct on sugars, which appears to be the preferred option of the Holness administration, rather than taxation.

For several months, the Heart Foundation, with the support of the health ministry, has run an effective media campaign on the correlation between a high intake of sugar-sweetened drink, obesity and diabetes, in a country where six out of 10 persons are overweight and it costs billions of dollars to treat non-communicable or lifestyle diseases. Such ads are unquestionably discomfiting for the manufacturers of the types of products they target, and are likely to have contributed to the decision by a handful of processed and baked food manufacturers to voluntarily announce reduced sugar content in their products.

Beyond their broad effect on people's attitudes to categories of food or drink, it is also possible for such to be defamatory if, in the absence of specific evidence, they claim or imply causation between a specific brand of product and its manufacturer and illness. There is potential commercial damage to the brand. All of this is what Wisynco believes the Heart Foundation did in a February post on the social media network Instagram.

The Heart Foundation concedes that it made a reference to Wisynco's flavoured water brand, CranWata, but said that it voluntarily removed the post long before its April 23 receipt of the lawsuit claiming defamation and seeking injunction against its maintenance of the post in any media.

Suing the Heart Foundation, of which it was a benefactor of several years, was not without risks for Wisynco. Many people will be sympathetic to an NGO that does good work, especially among the poor. In that context it was not surprising that Wisynco withdrew its lawsuit, but after, according to its chairman, William Mahfood, HFJ conceded in its pleadings having inadvertently and unintentionally included CranWata in its post, it had taken steps to remove it from the Internet and declared its intention not to 'publish, republish, post or repost' the material.

According to Mr Mahfood, he had in the circumstance of those admissions instructed his lawyers to declare his company's willingness to pay the HFJ's legal cost, an obligation that the foundation pointed out was inevitably Wisynco's once it voluntarily withdrew its lawsuit.

Aggressive posture

What is surprising, however, is the HFJ's aggressive posture in the face of Wisynco's withdrawal of its case.

It may have made reference to CranWata and had withdrawn its posts, but declared it had gone to court fully ready 'to present arguments in opposition to the application for an injunction'.

Added the HFJ: "The Heart Foundation maintains that at no time did it defame or otherwise disparage Wisynco or any of its products and if given the opportunity expected to demonstrate this to a judge of the Supreme Court." Its post, presumably including the reference to CranWata, the foundation added, "represented a fair comment on a matter of public interest".

We make no judgement on those arguments. But given the discussion expected on the larger issue and Wisynco's place on the health ministry's food industry task force that is to carry that dialogue, the Heart Foundation's poking at Wisynco, as a strategy, is likely to be counterproductive.