(Steve Correa & Ronald D’Souza )
A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon a WhatsApp notification from the Secretary and Commissioner of Food Safety in West Bengal, stating that gutka and pan masala would be banned starting November 7. The question is: How effective are these measures, and what do they really achieve?
Banning harmful products like gutka and pan masala is not new, but it raises important questions about their effectiveness. Do these actions discourage consumption and improve public health, or do they merely drive the trade underground? Understanding the broader implications of product bans requires a deeper look into behavioural, economic, and public health perspectives.
A category of goods caters to what is often called human vice — “sin goods.” These include products like tobacco, alcohol, and other substances that have the potential to harm public health. Governments often choose between two policy measures: heavy taxation or outright bans. Sometimes, luxury goods also fall under this category, depending on the ideology of the ruling government. For instance, luxury cars like Mercedes or BMWs can face high taxes, making them accessible only to a select few.
Taxation and regulation are common strategies for curbing consumption. However, bans, particularly in the case of tobacco products like gutka and pan masala, are often enforced in countries where the health burden of these substances is high. Gutka, for example, is a mixture of crushed areca nut, tobacco, and slaked lime and is known to be a potent carcinogen that significantly increases the risk of oral cancers. India, having one of the highest incidences of oral cancer in the world, has been compelled to adopt aggressive measures to reduce consumption.
“If we are to make any headway in reducing the incidences of preventable diseases such as oral cancer, tackling the consumption of gutka and other tobacco-based products is crucial.” — Dr Pankaj Chaturvedi, Head of the Department of Head and Neck Cancer, Tata Memorial Hospital.
Banning harmful products like gutka and pan masala can be seen as a well-intentioned public health intervention. However, the effectiveness of such bans varies. While the intent is to reduce consumption by making the products unavailable or harder to access, the results are not always straightforward.
In the case of cigarettes, Western countries have seen significant success in reducing smoking rates through a combination of bans, taxation, and public awareness campaigns. The banning of smoking in public places, combined with high taxes, has made smoking a socially and economically undesirable habit in many places. In countries like the UK and Australia, smoking rates have plummeted, and the incidence of smoking-related diseases has also seen a corresponding decline. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 2000 and 2015, the global smoking rate dropped from 27% to 20%, with strict tobacco control measures contributing significantly to this reduction.
However, the impact of banning products like gutka has been more complicated. While gutka is banned in several Indian states, reports show that consumers often find ways to bypass the ban. Many users have switched to purchasing the ingredients separately and mixing their gutka, while others continue buying the banned product on the black market. A study found that 15% of respondents continued to purchase pre-packaged gutka even after a ban was imposed. In this case, while the ban made it harder to obtain gutka legally, it did not necessarily eliminate its consumption.
The economic aspect of addiction plays a significant role in the effectiveness of bans. Many addictive substances are inexpensive, which makes them accessible to a large population — for example, a sachet of gutka costs as little as 10 rupees. The low price, combined with the addictive nature of the product, creates a strong incentive for users to find alternative ways to obtain it.
Behavioural economics suggests that the harder it is to access a product, the more desirable it becomes — a phenomenon known as the “forbidden fruit effect.” Consumers may resort to the black market or alternative products that are just as harmful, if not more so. For instance, after the banning of gutka, there was an increase in the consumption of so-called “mouth fresheners” or other formulations that, though legal, contain harmful ingredients.
However, banning a product is not just about making it harder to obtain; it’s about changing the narrative around consumption. In the case of cigarettes, for example, public health campaigns focusing on the costs of smoking, both financially and health-wise, have played a crucial role. Smokers in many countries are now acutely aware of the high cost of smoking — not just the price of a pack of cigarettes but the long-term health consequences and the social stigma attached to the habit. “Banning is not enough. We must couple these policies with strong public health campaigns that communicate the personal and societal costs of addiction.” — Dr Rijo John, Economist and Public Health Expert
Banning harmful products like gutka and pan masala can be an important tool in reducing public health risks, but it is not a silver bullet. To ensure the effectiveness of such bans, governments need to adopt a holistic approach. Educating the public about the health risks associated with these products can create a long-term impact. Campaigns that target specific populations, such as younger people or those in rural areas where these products are more prevalent, are critical. Offering healthier alternatives or providing rehabilitation programs for addiction can help users transition away from harmful substances. In many cases, users need support to break free from addiction. While bans are often implemented, lax enforcement undermines effectiveness. Strengthening the enforcement of bans can help curb the illegal sale of banned substances and discourage users from seeking black-market alternatives. Policies that reward users for quitting or provide economic incentives for healthier behaviour can further reduce consumption. For example, tax breaks for individuals participating in cessation programs or companies implementing strong anti-addiction policies could be beneficial.
Any product or service consumed excessively can have negative effects. Marijuana has become legal in many parts of the world (and it is quite often consumed in India as well). It is better to have oversight of products and services, but then we get into a realm of governance and overreach. Governments need to proactively manage these issues rather than proscribe them, as the problem never goes away.
Ultimately, the question is not whether banning works but how to improve it. A more comprehensive approach that addresses the underlying behavioural, economic, and social factors will be key to ensuring that bans lead to meaningful reductions in consumption and improvements in public health.
Steve Correa is an Executive Coach and Author of The Indian Boss at Work, Thinking Global, Acting Indian
Ronald D’Souza has Corporate and Consulting Experience and mentors new startups.
Steve Correa is an Executive Coach and Author of The Indian Boss at Work, Thinking Global, Acting Indian
[1] Ronald D’Souza has Corporate and Consulting Experience and mentors new startups.
This article also appeared on Medium on 30th October 2024
https://medium.com/@stevecorrea.com/is-banning-harmful-products-effective-06fc3bff8d2b
Share this post